Donald Trump

There's also the matter of statutory construction. What was the purpose of the law? To prevent people from inciting violence against themselves? I hardly think so. I don't know of a single incitement case in which the defendant was sucessfully prosecuted for inciting violence against himself. Terminiello v, Chicago ( Post #3453 supra) illustrates the constitutional problems of trying to interpret the law that way.

 

It sounds like, short of stealing the flag of another and burning it, a flag-burner cannot incite violence.

 

Because me and my buddies are standing on a courthouse lawn with our hands to our hearts and pledging allegiance to the flag on the flagpole during some U.S. illegal invasion when you walk up with a flag and burn it. A mindlessly patriotic American might just give you a push. Then it could be said that you incited violence.

Anyway, my point is that the bill that Clinton cosponsored would have subjected a flag-burner to a year in jail and a hundred-thousand dollar fine for inciting violence even though there is no scenario that could be interpreted as someone having incited violence by burning the flag. What was she thinking?

 

She was probably thinking what Trump was thinking. It would be useful to be on record as pro-flag.

 

Yeah, politicians are such ass-kissing suck-ups. Proposing a law that's not even definable.

 

You guys are still talking about this?

It was unconstitutional when Hillary proposed it

And it is still unconstitutional now that Trump is proposing it.

I dont understand why this would cause pages of debate lol

 

Well, when someone accuses one politician of proposing an unconstitutional law, and then fail to mention that their sweetheart, pet politician is guilty of the same, it's pretty hard to not throw their hypocritical thinking up in their face. And when they then attempt to draw a distinction between their nemesis politician and their pet politician by suggesting that their pet politician included the element of "incitement to violence" in their interpretation of criminal flag-burning, it's pretty hard to not point out that no such situational condition exists.

 

Let's go over the distinctions again: (1) As a lawyer, of course Hillary knew that what she was proposing would have no chance of ever happening in the real world except in the most extreme scenario of a person burning the flag with the provable intent to rally others present to use violence under conditions where such an outcome would be likely, Trump had no such qualification. (2) Hillary did not include loss of citizenship as a penalty. Trump did. It might seem to you and me that a stiff fine and/or prison time is as bad or worse, but the Supreme Court thought otherwise in Kent v. Dulles. (3) Hillary made her move as one of 100 U.S. Senators, knowing that her action would probably never pass the Senate, let alone the House--and that was in 2005. The bill died a quick death in Congress and was forgotten, it was criticized in front page headlines in the New York Times and other liberal media, but soon forgotten, and nobody brought it up during the campaign because there were so many other issues to talk about, and flag burning was regarded as a dead one. Trump made his remarks as President= elect soon to take office, thusmaking it a clear and present danger. Some may regard Hillary as their pet. More think of her as the lesser of evils, and two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Lots of people I would bet didn't vote for him to fix the system but instead to shake the system up.
That seems to have failed too though. Not stupid to try though.

 

For sure the Trump vote was 90% a protest/let's fuck this shit up vote, which normally I'm all in favour of. Like the meme says though, special kind of stupid there.

lol you believed Donald Trump, like the most profilic manipulative liar of all time next to all other evil historical despots like Hitler and Tony Bliar.

 

So, with your special powers, you've deciphered Clinton's mind when she cosponsored a bill to criminalize flag-burning. Okay, assuming that there's something to these special powers of yours, we now know that Clinton was an ass-kissing suck-up proposing something that she knew had no merit. And, of course, your special powers also allows you to decipher the mind of Trump, finding that he was not being an ass-kissing suck-up proposing something that he knew had no merit.

In reality, they are both ass-kissing suck-ups doing their best to appeal to their constituency. And so people vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two ass-kissing suck-ups.

 

http://qklnk.co/ZN4RSd


This link is about a Texan GOP elector explaining why he will not cast his electoral college vote for Trump.

Since this man was previously a trump supporter, I found it to be quite interesting.

 

This man is awesome

 

thank you.

I agree

_________________________________________


and I have no idea whatsoever wth I was doing putting "wears was" in what I said and what you quoted. lol so I fixed it .


_________________________________________



I'm going to learn to post links if it kills me...but that one ^ was easy, coming from a reputable source which I could check out myself easily.

 

Trump has picked Scott Pruitt, a climate change denialist, to lead the E.P.A. Yet another fox put in charge of a henhouse.

Hey, if China can live with all that pollution so can we!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/07/us/politics/scott-pruitt-epa-trump.html?_r=0

 

as a universal consciousnesss here, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!