The Crimson Cyclone wrote:I don't think brantt realizes that the 1st amendment also protects his rights to hold Klan rallies

The Carrier news is a short-term win for Trump, but with long-term caveats

Give them their due: The news that Carrier Corp. will keep close to 1,000 jobs in Indiana rather than move them to Mexico looks like a first big win for the incoming administration - at least in the short run. Yes, we'll have to read the fine print about what was promised. (And, yes, we're wondering how much of this was a Mike Pence project versus a Trump one). But the announcement is still a victory that Trump can tout to his supporters, and it's a prime example of how he can effectively use the bully pulpit to follow through on his promises. Here's the long-term problem, though: Targeting individual companies one by one simply isn't a sustainable strategy like actual economic policymaking would be. As the University of Michigan's Justin Wolfers puts it: "Every savvy CEO will now threaten to ship jobs to Mexico, and demand a payment to stay." By the way: Imagine the reaction from Republicans, circa 2009-2010, if Barack Obama were making details to force a business's behavior. We'd be hearing cries of "socialism" and "crony capitalism." What say you, free-market conservatives?

In exchange for keeping the factory running in Indianapolis, Mr. Trump and Mr. Pence are expected to reiterate their campaign pledges to be friendlier to businesses by easing regulations and overhauling the corporate tax code, according to a spokeswoman for Mr. Trump.

The state of Indiana also plans to give economic incentives to Carrier as part of the deal to stay, according to local officials.

ashton wrote:As youseff pointed out, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill that would make burning an American flag punishable by up to two years in jail. Whatever names you want to apply to Trump, Brantt, or Republicans in general over this issue also apply to the Democratic nominee for president.

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.

Monkeyboy wrote:

Brantt wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Also Brantt has voted Dem for the past decade+ before Trump, and both the House Majority Leader and Senate Majority Leader distanced themselves from Trump's position on flag burning today. Nothing close to a straightforward partisan issue.

Correct..........16 years to be exact.

All this talk about me is flattering. I'm so grateful.

I'm curious if you are ok with his moves so far. You said you wanted him because he was going to shake things up. So far, he's been placing people in positions that they aren't qualified for and he's got Goldman Sachs people and the most radically conservative (and in some cases racist) people out there. He's not draining the swamp.

For someone who has voted democrat for 16 years, their ideas must be distressing to you. In any case, he's going with establishment ultra conservatives. He's not shaking things up in the sense that things are going to get fixed. Are you in "wait and see" mode or are his moves concerning you?

ashton wrote:As youseff pointed out, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill that would make burning an American flag punishable by up to two years in jail. Whatever names you want to apply to Trump, Brantt, or Republicans in general over this issue also apply to the Democratic nominee for president.

Werthless wrote:

ashton wrote:As youseff pointed out, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill that would make burning an American flag punishable by up to two years in jail. Whatever names you want to apply to Trump, Brantt, or Republicans in general over this issue also apply to the Democratic nominee for president.

As jersey noted, the GOP does not have a stranglehold on poopooing the value of the 1st amendment, or seeking to restrict its application. Too many folks in politics just think "yeah, yeah, of course the 1st amendment is important, yeah, freedom of speech" without thinking through what that actually means. It means that government is not going to put you in jail for something offensive you say on twitter, but it doesn't mean you mean you won't be fired from your job. It means that you can gather to peaceably protest something, but it doesn't mean you can riot and destroy property. It means you can compare a President to Hitler and not expect the government to retaliate, but it doesn't mean that you will not be judged by private citizens.

Trump is an interesting guy with respect to the press, who are explicitly protected in the 1st amendment. Afterall, Trump has always interacted with the press as a private citizen. He's not a big fan of the press, to say the least, and he has always viewed the press as a strategic weapon that could work for or against your interests. While most presidents would agree that the press is important, Trump's approach is unique... rather than opening access to get favorable coverage, the only way Trump really knows how to interact with the press is through aggressive action: restricting access, complaining about fairness, and threatening to sue. It is a marked departure, surely, from Obama! It will be interesting, to say the least, if Trump actually takes legal action against newspapers while president.

And then there's the freedom of religion mentioned in the first amendment. Trump has likened mosques to battlegrounds, asserting that all Muslims are at the center of the fight against terrorism. He's called for increased surveillance, and called for closing down mosques. "Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice." Yes, President Trump, we have only one choice, but it's not the one you're suggesting. That choice is to honor the Constitutional protections provided to citizens to exercise their religion. Again, it will be very interesting what concrete policy he actually attempts to have enacted.

And now we have flag burning. It's a form of protest used because it is an offensive protest. It's the symbolism of it, the refutation of our cultural norms, that bothers people. I would guess that there is a large overlap between the people that dislike flag-burning and the people that dislike Colin Kaepernick. It's not a Republican/Democrat issue per se, but a litmus test of where one sits on the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum. Does disrespect of our flag, of our institutions, require action? The Supreme Court ruling on this issue notwithstanding, it's easy for many Americans to assume that disrespectful actions require punishment. Afterall, this is how we handle disrespectful children; we punish them to show them that their actions are not morally centered. However, this is where libertarians cleanly break with other GOPers, and where some Democrats join forces across the aisle. Is the government the parent, and the citizen the child, or is there a different relationship? Does the government have an obligation to legislate morals, even when no harm is done? For those that call themselves social conservatives, that answer is usually yes, America does have an obligation to prevent gays from marrying, from adopting, and to excommunicate those from the Church of America who do not share "our values."

Trump may not be religious, but he certainly has expressed a set of morals and values that he intends to govern with. We'll see how the rest of the body politic reacts when he advocates for unconstitutional policy (and not just in a tweet).

CalvinBall wrote:same people who are offended by burning the american flag have no problem plastering their trucks with confederate flag stickers or hanging it of their front porch. so, idk.

Werthless wrote:BTW, I'm making a concerted effort not to troll people I disagree with. I'll certainly screw up occasionally, but I really don't want folks to feel like they can't post in this thread without being ridiculed. I'm glad brantt posts, since it's a different perspective, and an echo chamber can be boring.

CalvinBall wrote:same people who are offended by burning the american flag have no problem plastering their trucks with confederate flag stickers or hanging it of their front porch. so, idk.

Werthless wrote:

ashton wrote:As youseff pointed out, Hillary Clinton sponsored a bill that would make burning an American flag punishable by up to two years in jail. Whatever names you want to apply to Trump, Brantt, or Republicans in general over this issue also apply to the Democratic nominee for president.

As jersey noted, the GOP does not have a stranglehold on poopooing the value of the 1st amendment, or seeking to restrict its application. Too many folks in politics just think "yeah, yeah, of course the 1st amendment is important, yeah, freedom of speech" without thinking through what that actually means. It means that government is not going to put you in jail for something offensive you say on twitter, but it doesn't mean you mean you won't be fired from your job. It means that you can gather to peaceably protest something, but it doesn't mean you can riot and destroy property. It means you can compare a President to Hitler and not expect the government to retaliate, but it doesn't mean that you will not be judged by private citizens.

Trump is an interesting guy with respect to the press, who are explicitly protected in the 1st amendment. Afterall, Trump has always interacted with the press as a private citizen. He's not a big fan of the press, to say the least, and he has always viewed the press as a strategic weapon that could work for or against your interests. While most presidents would agree that the press is important, Trump's approach is unique... rather than opening access to get favorable coverage, the only way Trump really knows how to interact with the press is through aggressive action: restricting access, complaining about fairness, and threatening to sue. It is a marked departure, surely, from Obama! It will be interesting, to say the least, if Trump actually takes legal action against newspapers while president.

And then there's the freedom of religion mentioned in the first amendment. Trump has likened mosques to battlegrounds, asserting that all Muslims are at the center of the fight against terrorism. He's called for increased surveillance, and called for closing down mosques. "Nobody wants to say this and nobody wants to shut down religious institutions or anything, but you know, you understand it. A lot of people understand it. We’re going to have no choice." Yes, President Trump, we have only one choice, but it's not the one you're suggesting. That choice is to honor the Constitutional protections provided to citizens to exercise their religion. Again, it will be very interesting what concrete policy he actually attempts to have enacted.

And now we have flag burning. It's a form of protest used because it is an offensive protest. It's the symbolism of it, the refutation of our cultural norms, that bothers people. I would guess that there is a large overlap between the people that dislike flag-burning and the people that dislike Colin Kaepernick. It's not a Republican/Democrat issue per se, but a litmus test of where one sits on the libertarian/authoritarian spectrum. Does disrespect of our flag, of our institutions, require action? The Supreme Court ruling on this issue notwithstanding, it's easy for many Americans to assume that disrespectful actions require punishment. Afterall, this is how we handle disrespectful children; we punish them to show them that their actions are not morally centered. However, this is where libertarians cleanly break with other GOPers, and where some Democrats join forces across the aisle. Is the government the parent, and the citizen the child, or is there a different relationship? Does the government have an obligation to legislate morals, even when no harm is done? For those that call themselves social conservatives, that answer is usually yes, America does have an obligation to prevent gays from marrying, from adopting, and to excommunicate those from the Church of America who do not share "our values."

Trump may not be religious, but he certainly has expressed a set of morals and values that he intends to govern with. We'll see how the rest of the body politic reacts when he advocates for unconstitutional policy (and not just in a tweet).

Donald Trump paid out millions of dollars to former students he allegedly defrauded at a fake university. He never apologized for having said that the judge in the case couldn’t preside over it objectively because his parents emigrated from Mexico. Trump then went on to explain that there’s no need to worry about his massive financial conflicts of interest because they’re not technically illegal as a matter of existing law.

To critics, this kind of corrupt behavior seems to self-evidently invalidate Trump’s promises to drain the swamp in Washington and serve as the people’s champion. But Jan-Werner Müller, a Princeton political scientist who recently published an excellent little book about authoritarian populist movements, finds that Trump supporters’ indifference to Trump’s corrupt leanings is actually rather typical. Even when clear evidence of corruption emerges once an authoritarian populist regime is in place, the regime’s key supporters are generally unimpressed.

“Today’s working class, Rust Belt voters are disenchanted by what they perceive to be a political and economic culture of exploitative greed and gridlock,” he writes, “and are waiting for someone to adopt their cause.”

Per Müller, their enthusiasm for Trump doesn’t necessarily reflect a misperception that he is honest or that he will eschew greed and corruption. Rather, their view is that he is on their side and that the protestations of his opponents merely reflect the self-interested defensiveness of the establishment. Highlighting themes of racial and ethnic conflict as central to American politics further feeds this dynamic. Trump may be a sonofabitch, the thinking goes, but at least he’s our sonofabitch.

Gabby Morrongiello @gabriellahope_
7m
Trump team says the president-elect has narrowed his search for secretary of state down to 4 people: Giuliani & Romney. Won't name other two