The Trumpster trumps the National Failures League

Donald Trump once again tweaks the Left with his particular brand of honesty and patriotism.

You just have to love the guy even if you don’t like him.

Trump to NFL owners: Fire “son-of-a-b**ch” players who don’t stand for national anthem

During his rally in Alabama, Trump bragged about his friendship with NFL owners and said protesters should be fired

Charlie May 09.23.20179:24 AM

At a rally in Huntsville, Alabama, on Friday night President Donald Trump criticized football players who have refused to stand during the national anthem, and encouraged National Football League team owners to fire the “son of a bitch” athletes who participate in the silent protest.

The president was in Alabama to endorse Sen. Luther Strange as the state’s special election approaches next week. Trump ranted about a wide range of issues as usual, but singled out NFL players who have chosen to silently protest police brutality against black Americans by not standing for the national anthem, and called for them to fired.

The protests have sparked nationwide controversy and debate since former 49ers quarterback, Colin Kaepernick, began kneeling during the anthem last year. Kaepernick has yet to have been offered a job since he opted out of his contract last June, and many have argued that the NFL has shunned him. Trump did not drop Kaepernick’s name, but his words were directly attributed to the movement the former player created.

“Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects or flag, to say, “get that son-of-a-bitch off the field right now,” Trump said as the crowd erupted. “Out, he’s fired.”

The president added with even more enthusiasm, “he’s fired!” as the crowd continued to applaud him. Trump stepped back from the podium, paced in a circle around the stage, and flailed his arms around to energize the crowd that cheered for the firing of players who quietly and peacefully protest injustice.

Read more at salon.com (but be sure to wash your hands when you’re done): https://www.salon.com/2017/09/23/trump-to-nfl-owners-fire-son-of-a-bch-players-who-dont-stand-for-national-anthem/

This entry was posted in General. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to The Trumpster trumps the National Failures League

  1. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    Speaking of the stupid….
    How stupid is it for el trumpo and u conservativiots to disrespect the first amendment?
    Conservativiots disrespect the constitution

  2. Even if Trump were serious, all that could be said was that there were consequences to disrespecting the flag. That doesn’t have to stop anyone from accepting those consequences and doing whatever they will do.

    Now what’s YOUR excuse? There’s not even an opportunity to speak here:

    UC Berkeley student group cancels ‘Free Speech Week’ event

    “The university has made it impossible to hold the event,” the group’s attorney, Marguerite Melo, told the website. “A lot of these speakers have withdrawn. To have an empty gesture of ‘Free Speech Week,’ when there are no speakers is impossible. And the university couldn’t guarantee our speakers would be safe.”

    “We are very disappointed,” she added “We are going to cancel. We have made a determination, or our clients have, that it is just not safe. If we had had Zellerbach Hall, that would be a different story. But my clients didn’t want to be responsible, even morally, if something happened.”

    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/09/23/uc-berkeley-student-group-cancels-free-speech-week-event.html

  3. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    Where in the constitution does it say it doesn’t apply at work?

    Hmm, those Russian nationalists beat up gays and protesters too.

    I get it, trumps a commie. You know, not the kind that thinks everybody’s equal. But, The kind that puts you in the Gulag in Siberia for protesting. The kind that says if it’s not our propaganda it’s fake news.

    Protest in the coal mine? No protests allowed at work. I get it. No unions. Rofl.

    Conservativiot commie pinkos.

    https://m.dailykos.com/stories/1700786

  4. “Where in the constitution does it say it doesn’t apply at work?”

    Here:

    A Chill Around the Water Cooler: First Amendment in the Workplace
    by Jeannette Cox

    Jeannette Cox is a professor of law at the University of Dayton School of Law. She specializes in disability law and employment discrimination law.

    “Can your boss fire you for expressing your views on social policy, participating in a political party, or donating money to an unpopular political cause? Polls indicate that many Americans believe the answer is no. After all, the right to free speech is among our most deeply ingrained civic values. We repeat, and cherish, the aphorism: “I can say what I like. It’s a free country.”

    In reality, however, American employees’ free speech rights may be more accurately summarized by this paraphrase of a 1891 statement by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.: “A employee may have a constitutional right to talk politics, but he has no constitutional right to be employed.” In other words: to keep your job, you often can’t say what you like.

    https://www.americanbar.org/publications/insights_on_law_andsociety/15/winter-2015/chill-around-the-water-cooler.html

  5. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    Humor? Yeah right, trump was just joking.

    Perhaps someone should explain Texas vs Johnson and us vs eichman to the troll.

    A flag is nothing more than a rag of cloth, stupid troll. You can’t disrespect a rag of cloth, period, so there can be no consequences, legally.

    “In an opinion by Justice Brennan and decided along the same 5–4 lines as in Texas v. Johnson, the Court held that the federal government, like the states, cannot prosecute a person for burning a United States flag, because to do so would be inconsistent with the First Amendment. The Government conceded that flag-burning constitutes expressive conduct and enjoys the First Amendment’s full protection. It is clear that the “Government’s asserted interest” in protecting the “physical integrity” of a privately owned flag in order “to preserve the flag’s status as a symbol of the Nation” and certain national ideals, is related to the suppression, and concerned with the content of free expression.

    The majority wrote that mere destruction or disfigurement of a symbol’s physical manifestation does not diminish or otherwise affect the symbol itself. The Government’s interest is implicated only when a person’s “treatment of the flag communicates a message” to others that is inconsistent with the identified ideals of the flag. The precise language of the Act’s prohibitions confirms Congress’ interest in the communicative impact of flag destruction, since each of the specified terms – with the possible exception of “burns” – unmistakably connotes disrespectful treatment of the flag and suggests a “focus on those acts likely to damage the flag’s symbolic value”. This is further supported by the Act’s explicit exemption for disposal of worn or soiled flags, which the Act protects from prosecution since disposing a worn or soiled flag does not desecrate the flag’s symbolic nature. Thus, the Act is struck down as its restriction on expressive conduct cannot “be justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech.”[8] It must therefore be subjected to “the most exacting scrutiny”,[9] which cannot justify its infringement on First Amendment rights. While flag desecration – like virulent ethnic and religious epithets, vulgar repudiations of the draft, and scurrilous caricatures – is deeply offensive to many, “the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”[10]

  6. “the Government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”[10]

    Look at you blow up your own argument with your own source material.

  7. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    And now the troll has dredged up a quote from way way back in 1891. He has also failed to note other more recent cases establishing such a right such as, Pickering.

    But, the troll has a point. In Pickering and other cases upholding free speech in the workplace, the Supreme Court has only made rulings when the government was the employer, not the private sector. So, naturally some trolls would argue this private sector can still “prohibit the free exercise thereof; abridging the freedom of speech.” Due to the courts lack of specificity on the matter.

    But, can they, really? Only if people allow them.

    Perhaps it’s time for a new Supreme Court test on the matter. -As there surely will be when the first players are fired. Rofl.

    Boycott conservativiots. Boycott their businesses. Boycott their services. Rofl.

  8. With regard to the Pickering case, we should be careful to understand that there were conditions of the majority opinion to reverse the decision of the Illinois SC. The decision was not a blanket covering, even in the case of public sector employment, for an individual to say whatever they wished against their public sector employer. There are limits established here as well. As there should be.

    Justice Marshall wrote the majority opinion and stated the following:

    “In sum, we hold that, in a case such as this, absent proof of false statements knowingly or recklessly made by him, [Footnote 6] a teacher’s exercise of his right to speak on issues of public importance may not furnish the basis for his dismissal from public employment. Since no (Page 391 U. S. 575) such showing has been made in this case regarding appellant’s letter, see Appendix, infra, his dismissal for writing it cannot be upheld and the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court must, accordingly, be reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
    It is so ordered.”

    https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/391/563/case.html

    Nevertheless, great job, friend Liberal…and thank you for allowing my point. I’m quite surprised.

    So with similar respect I would ask our friend to consider that the whole point of the Constitutional prohibition limiting speech in the U.S. is that the public sector alone has the sole authority to make the laws, and the proscriptions for the punishment thereof, of the State. The Constitution is a document meant to limit government, not private, entities (naturally, it is obviously admitted that private entities are required to abide by the laws of the State as constrained by the Constitution).

    Since the private sector can’t make law in the US, a private business could never “prevent” free speech in the same fashion as government. For example, a private business has no authority to imprison an individual for speaking out against it. That’s not to say the private sector is unable to punish an individual for speech, e.g., to fire him/her. Surely it must be allowed that terminating one’s employment from a private business is incomparable to terminating one’s freedom via prison or worse.

    Therefore, an individual cannot be prevented from speaking out against a private employer, rather, the question becomes whether or not the employee is willing to accept the consequences of his actions, including termination. And such a thing is just is it not?

    Why should a private business be forced to accept an employee’s disloyalty? Why should a cattle rancher be forced to continue to employ an individual that continually made false or slanderous claims about his business to other ranchers, business partners, vendors, or sale barns, to the extent that the rancher’s business began to suffer unjustly?

    It would seem even in the Pickering case SCOTUS agreed.

  9. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    While we have no idea what the troll is talking about regarding disloyalty, as loyalty has nothing to do with the constitution, and obviously veracity negates any slander.

    So, no troll, neither the constitution nor your freedom of speech stops at the workplace door.

    Instead, what we have here is a conflict with “at will” work laws that give the employer the right to fire anyone working without contract for any reason or no reason at all without just cause.

    So, if no cause at all is required for termination,one cannot assert they were fired for speech, even if that were indeed the case.

    We may note that no ceo or union would dare work without a contract. Now we see one major reason why.all states but one are at will work states.

    Thus it would seem montana would be the best state from which to mount this Supreme Court challenge to at will work and the constitution.

    Then there is the 14th amendment the troll also conveniently ignores. Firing black players for protesting black discrimination by police, would itself be discrimination.

  10. “While we have no idea what the troll is talking about regarding disloyalty, as loyalty has nothing to do with the constitution, and obviously veracity negates any slander.”

    On the contrary, the Pickering case was exactly about disloyalty to the employer.

    “At a hearing, the Board charged that numerous statements in the letter were false, and that the publication of the statements unjustifiably impugned the Board and school administration. The Board found all the statements false as charged, and concluded that publication of the letter was “detrimental to the efficient operation and administration of the schools of the district” and that “the interests of the school require[d] [appellant’s dismissal]” under the applicable statute.”

    The school board felt that Pickering’s comments “unjustifiably impugned the Board and school administration”, and believed the publication of his letter detrimental to the efficient operation of the school district, both of which certainly show disloyalty to the employer.

    “So, no troll, neither the constitution nor your freedom of speech stops at the workplace door.”

    SCOTUS and the American Bar association directly contradict your premise that freedom of speech doesn’t stop at the workplace door.

    “Instead, what we have here is a conflict with “at will” work laws that give the employer the right to fire anyone working without contract for any reason or no reason at all without just cause.

    So, if no cause at all is required for termination, one cannot assert they were fired for speech, even if that were indeed the case.”

    This argument contradicts empirically verifiable, objective Truth:

    No employer is going to fire a loyal, productive employee without cause. To do so would harm the efficiency of the business.

    The non-existence of an employment contract cannot negate the reasons for employment termination. If I fire an employee for stealing, then I have fired that employee for stealing, regardless of whether there’s an employment contract.

    The argument appears to contradict itself:

    If the non-existence of an employment contract precludes an assertion of cause for termination, then by definition that includes assertions of unjust cause. Therefore, under your assumptions there could not be an “unjust cause” for termination, just as there could not be a “just cause” for termination.

    “We may note that no ceo or union would dare work without a contract. Now we see one major reason why.all states but one are at will work states.”

    The cattle rancher owner has a greater share of responsibility for the overall health of the organization compared to the ranch foreman. That’s why the ranch owner gets the big bucks, while the foreman doesn’t, hence common sense dictates that conditions of employment may be pre-negotiated for individuals at the executive level.

    “Then there is the 14th amendment the troll also conveniently ignores. Firing black players for protesting black discrimination by police, would itself be discrimination.”

    This argument contradicts itself:

    By definition, protesting alleged discrimination would be covered under the first amendment, not the fourteenth.

  11. I Hate Conservativiots says:

    “The school board felt that Pickering’s comments “unjustifiably impugned the Board and school administration”, and believed the publication of his letter detrimental to the efficient operation of the school district.

    So, no troll, neither the constitution nor your freedom of speech stops at the workplace door.

    SCOTUS and the American Bar association directly contradict your premise that freedom of speech doesn’t stop at the workplace door.”

    No, they don’t. They argue the right to fire with no cause.

    “Instead, what we have here is a conflict with “at will” work laws that give the employer the right to fire anyone working without contract for any reason or no reason at all without just cause.

    So, if no cause at all is required for termination, one cannot assert they were fired for speech, even if that were indeed the case.”

    This argument contradicts empirically verifiable, objective Truth:

    Unsubstantiated troll babble.

    “No employer is going to fire a loyal, productive employee without cause. To do so would harm the efficiency of the business.”

    Rofl. More claptrap troll lies.

    No cause is required anyway.

    “The non-existence of an employment contract cannot negate the reasons for employment termination. “

    More troll babble. Obviously it can if it negates any reason to have any reason at all to fire anyone you like.

    But, at least some players do have contracts. Contracts, that like ceos say they get paid even after they get fired. Rofl.

  12. “But, at least some players do have contracts. Contracts, that like ceos say they get paid even after they get fired. Rofl.”

    Well…you are an employer. Post for all of us to see your employment contract for your employees if indeed such is so morally required?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *