How's that Constitution thing working out for you?

marina

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:00 pm

DrMom wrote:

Why does the Left categorize displaying the Confederate flag as a punishable hate crime, but protects the burning of the US flag as free speech?

I think both acts should be protected under free speech.

Good news for you : Both *are* protected by free speech, as is most hate speech.

Can you point to any individuals jailed or stripped of their citizenship rights for displaying a confederate flag? Can you point to any president advocating for such a consequence?

Last edited by marina on Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:04 pm; edited 1 time in total

MiracleMama

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:01 pm

Amarante wrote:

Why would you think he actually knows anything about constitutional law since there is nothing in his background to suggest it. He is not a man who reads or has ever shown himself to be particularly interested in learning about anything.

I have no idea if Trump reads or what his learning interests are. Has he declared that he doesn't read or learn anything??

In any case, as to why I would think he actually knows flag burning is legal. I guess because I do. And I haven't been to law school. I think it's common knowledge for any American with a high school degree.

Curious now, is there anyone reading this thread who is a US citizen who is learning here now for the first time that it is legal to burn our flag???

Amarante

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:03 pm

MiracleMama wrote:

It is widely reported that he doesn't read and has no patience for anything requiring deep analysis.

It has been widely reported even by friendly sources that he has to be handled in terms of how he is manipulated into behaving and how his information is presented.

treestump

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:09 pm

MiracleMama wrote:

I'd label this comment as silly or uninformed. Outrageous? Not so much. I'm sure once his cabinet is in place he will be better advised on US laws, lol!

Alas he won't be informed on anything other than how many Twitter shares he got, because he skips almost all his intelligence briefings and seems to be appointing quite an inexperienced cabinet.

Guess he believes ignorance is bliss. And is probably feeling the shockwaves of biting off truckloads more than he could chew.

33055

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:14 pm

Amarante wrote:

I don't understand how anyone could be pleased with a President who lacks fundamental knowledge of the basic bulwarks of American democracy.

Symbolic speech including flag burning is protected because it is speech. It's fundamental.

The right of a free press to vigorously report is critical to a democracy and a well informed citizenry.

I just give up with people who are willing to excuse any shocking statement or action by Trump including his unprecedented likely incredible ethical breaches.

There seems to be no actual comparison. Hillary is excoriated for having some transactions which might have benefited a foundation which did enormous good for the world. Trump is excused for having illegitimate foundational transactions as well as seemingly now intending to keep running his private businesses which benefit only himself and his family.

The Clintons got richer because of that foundation. Her pay for play schemes are disgusting. She is a thief and a crock using a charitable foundation for cover is just her latest scandal. Starting with her corruption in Arkansas, she is very good at benefiting her coffers. The foundation violates tax laws that would have anyone else spending time in club fed. I find it amazing that you want to juxtapose Hillary's honesty against Trump's stupidity. I don't believe either exists.

I am with Fox on this one in that these statements are part of a bigger game here. Trump is a sophisticated billionaire, yet he gets the blue collar workers to believe he is one of them who made good. He connects with the guy who doesn't know Con law and could care less. He says what they feel. Bill Clinton had that touch.

Hillary, in one of her hacked emails, said that she has public policy positions which differ from her private policy positions. I think the same is true of Trump. If he didn't present himself as a good old boy, he wouldn't be pres-elect.

treestump

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:18 pm

Squishy wrote:

Okay, let's not talk about Trump's own corrupt foundation, the fraud case he had to settle re his bogus university, and his shady business practices. Oh, and the blatant conflict of interests he has now. Corruption, thief and crook are all fine words to use indeed - re Trump.

Laiya

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:19 pm

Amarante wrote:

This bothers me because this is the classic smear by the left of conservatives--they're all just dumb and dumber. Because if they were smart, they'd agree with all the enlightened leftists, right?

I'm sure it's Trump's sheer stupidity that enabled him to amass just under $4billion dollars in personal wealth, too.

Eta. They did the same with former president Bush too. Turned him into a caricature of stupidity and nonsense in efforts to delegitimize him.

Last edited by Laiya on Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:24 pm; edited 1 time in total

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:23 pm

Amarante wrote:

You seem to be basing an opinion on nothing Trump has actually presented. Why would you think he actually knows anything about constitutional law since there is nothing in his background to suggest it. He is not a man who reads or has ever shown himself to be particularly interested in learning about anything.

And why in the world would anyone excuse the so-called leader of the free world by saying he enjoys making outrageous statements. What possible purpose can it have? What kind of normal person in a position of leadership does such things - or even thinks the kinds of things he puts out to the world.

I have yet to read any cogent explanation of exactly what the "evil" Hillary did that in any way compares to what Trump has done in terms of fraud and deceit. I don't understand what is "good" in the man such that people are willing to essentially close their eyes to his terrible lack of ethics and morality and yet judge his opponent by a completely different standard. It continues to astound me that the scales are so unbalanced.

And I must admit my only bright spot is the wonderful schadenfreude I will have when all the voters who have benefitted from programs passed by "liberals" such as Medicaid and Medicare and even Obamacare find themselves stripped of services they depend on. Very Happy

Or when the factory workers or coal miners realize they have been scammed since there is no way to bring back coal given that it is not a viable fuel at this point nor is it possible to bring back manufacturing jobs when the sectors that need to be developed are for those which rely on education or even other types of skills like engineering/software etc.

First, I spent Thanksgiving with my disabled BIL who depends on those programs. None of us are going to enjoy them being cut, and him becoming homeless (or worse yet, having to move in with us). I won't even enjoy the conundrum of my Trump-supporting, Obamacare recipient friend with cancer.

Next, Evil Hilary. Petraeus, whom Trump is considering for Secretary of State, admitted removing several so-called black books -- notebooks in which he kept classified and non-classified information from his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan -- and giving them to Broadwell. Trump has apparently discussed his business with world leaders who contacted him after the election. But, y'know, Clinton's emails. Evil.

Finally, and not addressed to your post, why does Fox keep referring to "Ivanka" taking away Trump's phone. She's his daughter, for heaven's sake. Sure, we've all heard his seriously creepy comments about her, and seen the memes but ... let's not go there. His wife is MELANIA.

Miri7

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:29 pm

Squishy wrote:

What reliable source do you get this information from? I know that DT said these things and that some fake news sites published stories on this, but the Clintons don't take any salary or compensation from their Foundation.

The Clintons have made loads of money from speaking fees and book deals, but from what I have read it doesn't appear that they've gotten any private benefit from their foundation.

And the amount of good work the foundation has done is staggering. The numbers of people who have benefitted from their vaccination, cancer and HIV/AIDS initiatives alone are in the millions.

Here is one article in fortune magazine:
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.....afari

You must be thinking of Trumps foundation, which has run amok with the NY AG's office because of its practices.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:40 pm

Ah, yes. The Clinton Foundation. Which get 4 stars, and an overall rating of 94.74 from Charity Navigator. 93.00 on accounting and transparency. 97.5 on financial. Which uses 86.9% of its funds on programs. (As a point of reference, the American Heart Association gets 91.18 overall, 96.00 on accounting and transparency, 88.20 financial. It uses 78.7% of its funds on programs.)

Versus the Trump Foundation. That has now ADMITTED that it engaged in self-dealing in 2015, and prior to 2015. That is using The Trump Foundation's money to help Trump, his businesses or his family ADMITTED. That means that THEY says it happened. Not someone else. No argument. THEY DID IT.

Laiya

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:48 pm

Amarante wrote:

If you're anticipating schadenfreude, you might end up disappointed.

This election is not just about Trump's landslide electoral college victory, or the fact that Republicans retained their majorities in both the senate and the House.

Over the past 8 years of Obama, Democrats lost nearly 3,000 state legislative seats and a dozen state governorships.

Clearly, there are many in this country who feel that it's those other policies that aren't working out.

The OECD has already forecasted that, as a result of Trump's planned tax cuts and other policies, the country's gdp is expected to grow by aprx. 2.5% next year and over 3% the following year.

SixOfWands

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:49 pm

Squishy wrote:

The Constitutional doesn't require him to divest himself of his businesses. This is a thread about that pesky document. Or doesn't the Constitution matter when talking about Trump?

The Constitution states, “no person holding any office of profit or trust” shall “accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state” unless Congress consents.

Its not an easy clause to interpret. When Obama won the Nobel Prize, a 13-page opinion was issued as to whether he could accept the funds. The opinion stated that the Emoluments Clause applied to the president, and that “Corporations owned or controlled by a foreign government are presumptively foreign states under the Emoluments Clause.” Trump’s companies do business with entities controlled by foreign governments and people with ties to them. The ventures include multimillion-dollar real estate arrangements — with Mr. Trump’s companies either as a full owner or a “branding” partner — in Ireland and Uruguay. The Bank of China is a tenant in Trump Tower and a lender for another building in Midtown Manhattan where Mr. Trump has a significant partnership interest.

Apart from that, Trump, as president, must act fully and wholly in the interest of the United States. That's going to be difficult when his discussions with foreign leaders include requests for business-related favors.

I also note that Trump promised that he would place his business interests in a "blind trust." Do his promises not matter to anyone?

nylon

Tue, Nov 29 2016, 12:51 pm

Laiya wrote:

1) I've seen plenty of conservatives call liberals "libtards" etc.

2) This is not the same. I actually do not think Trump is stupid, but Trump doesn't have sustained attention or interest in policy details. His business record is extremely mixed and he got a start in his family business.

Meanwhile, GWB actively encouraged his image as a non-intellectual, guy you want to have a beer with, aw-shucks image. It wasn't entirely true, but he fed it to the media. Trump is not. People who KNOW trump are saying he lacks patience and sitzfleisch.

Trump is a salesman, and a good one. He sold people some swampland in Florida, but that doesn't necessarily mean people are stupid: it means they wanted to believe what he was selling and there was enough noise to reinforce it.