• Ongoing coronavirus / COVID-19 discussion: how is the pandemic affecting your community, workplace, and wellness? 🦠

    Working from home? So are we. Come join us! Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing.

The NEVERENDING Political Discussion Thread

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,131
Points
54
tRUMP absolutely said those things and he own tweet words confirms it:



And now he has shut down the military's newspaper Stars & Stripes which has been in publication since the Civil War.

Plus he is attacking Biden for wearing a mask.

Ugh, please stop this madness.


mskis - Biden is not looking at taking away you guns & political establishment in the Republicans world has died & is blindly following tRUMP. Check out what those establishment people were saying just 10/15 years ago. The entire script has flipped.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
People are shocked that the pres is not pro military, not a christian, not really pro anything outside of himself. Really, you haven't figured that out by now. On the plus side it means he's not really anti stuff either. He just has a low opinion of everything that isn't him.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,390
Points
37
The AP, NYT, Washington Post, and some other outlet have corroborated the incident as reported by the Atlantic using the same and their sources. Trump and his administration have shown a past pattern of lying and he has made other public comments disparaging servicemembers.

Trump has demonstrated over and over again that he doesn't understand or appreciate the sacrifices servicemembers make.

This veteran has seen no reason to disbelieve the story as originally reported in The Atlantic.

Trump is an absolute turd person and this is just another piece of evidence.
Okay, veteran. Didn't say it's not believable, just that the first article was lazy journalism.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,131
Points
54
White House has told all federal agencies to cancel contracts for Diversity Training & stop eating taxpayer dollars on the “un-American propaganda”
This happened a day or 2 after Tucker Carlson & Fox News complained about it. More confirmation that Fox News Opinion people are in charge of this country.
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,413
Points
33
Something I've been thinking a lot about that has been bothering me:

Somehow over the span of 150 years, not a single Trump has served in the military. That is so implausible to prompt the question of "why and how?" By my count, my family has six during that span on just my father's side, and we are not even remotely a military family. Our family came off a religious line known for pacifism and could have likely obtained exemptions. This is part of what makes the investigation in The Atlantic so plausible: it is clear that the family has a history of dodging service obligations and holds military service in contempt.

From the date of the birth of Donald Trump’s grandfather in 1869 to the birth of Tristan Miles Trump in 2011, we see zero military service. This also includes: Frederick Trump (1869-1918); Henry Trump (1899-1900); Fred Christ Trump Sr. (1905-1999); John George Trump (1907-1985); Fred Christ Trump Jr. (1938-1981); Donald J. Trump (1946 to present); Robert Trump (1948-present); John Gordon Trump (1938-2012); Fred Trump III (1962-present); Donald John Trump Jr. (1977-present); Eric Frederick Trump (1984-present); Barron William Trump (2006-present); Christopher Trump (1995-present); William Trump (1999-present); Donald John Trump III (2009-present); Tristan Milos Trump (2011-present); Spencer Frederick Trump (2012-present); John Frederick (Trump) Kushner (2013 to present); and Theodore James (Trump) Kushner (2016 to present).​
This list covers 147 years of Donald Trump’s direct male ancestors and successors who have lived in America during these 147 years. Excluding infant deaths, one that was seriously disabled and six young children, there were 10 mature Trump men who were of military service age during this time.​
And during these same 147-year span the following military conflicts occurred: Spanish American War (1898); Boxer Rebellion (1899-1901); occupation of the Dominican Republic (1916-1924); World War I (1914-1918); World War II (1939-1945); Korean War (1950-1953); Vietnam War (1968-1975); invasion of Grenada (1983); invasion of Panama (1989-1991); Gulf War (1990-1991); Bosnian War (1992-1995); Kosovo War (1998-1999); Afghanistan War (2001-2014); and the Iraq War (2003-2014).​

Two personal characteristics stand out when I'm identifying preferred candidates beyond policy issues: do they have a history of service (military or otherwise) and have they experienced a major loss in their lives (indicating a capacity for empathy). I've found those two aspects are pretty effective in sniffing out whether someone has the capacity to be a leader on a national stage and act in the public interest.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
mskis - Biden is not looking at taking away you guns & political establishment in the Republicans world has died & is blindly following tRUMP. Check out what those establishment people were saying just 10/15 years ago. The entire script has flipped.
Ummmm based on https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# there are things that I own right now that I would not be permitted to buy in the future. I don't have any issued with most of what he wants to do, but there are a few things that I think are a bit of an overreach.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
So are these items necessary for hunting or personal protection or just something you enjoy owning for say target practice?
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
So are these items necessary for hunting or personal protection or just something you enjoy owning for say target practice?
All three and I will not disclose what or how many I have.

I agree that one should not own a rocket launcher or a tank, but the problem with his past comments and positions is that they are pandering to those who don't understand weapons. For example, THIS gun is far more powerful than THIS gun, but one looks scary and one does not. There are a lot of people who use the first one for deer hunting and the second one is used for target practice or vermin control in more rural areas. Both of them have the same semiautomatic operation.

More so, the data does not support the concept of what he is trying to stop.

As I noted the majority of what he is proposing is a great idea. But some of it goes way too far.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Ummmm based on https://joebiden.com/gunsafety/# there are things that I own right now that I would not be permitted to buy in the future. I don't have any issued with most of what he wants to do, but there are a few things that I think are a bit of an overreach.
Do you feel that the constitution was written and intended by the framers to allow what you own what Mr. Biden may not permit you to own?

Guns are really the only thing that confuse me about how we got to where we are in the US. We are the most powerful country in the world, and yet, we are so paranoid that our government (which is the most powerful) may take over and we need weapons to protect ourselves from this potential fight (it wouldn't be a fight the government would win). Therefore, I need that semi-automatic or large capacity rifle. I need to own them without registration (because the government will come and take them before that fight we are going to have and I would have nothing to fight with), and I need to be able to sell them without anyone needing to know (in case my other guns were taken, I need to be able to get them back).

PS. We are cool with not allowing felons or mentally unstable people from owning guns, I mean that makes sense... but everyone else needs unlimited access, with unlimited control, because the 2nd amendment.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
 

Bubba

Cyburbian
Messages
5,390
Points
37
Do you feel that the constitution was written and intended by the framers to allow what you own what Mr. Biden may not permit you to own?
I could've sworn that was a power reserved for Congress...
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
Do you feel that the constitution was written and intended by the framers to allow what you own what Mr. Biden may not permit you to own?
I don't feel, but know that was the case. Please read Federalist Papers 29 and 46.

PS. We are cool with not allowing felons or mentally unstable people from owning guns, I mean that makes sense... but everyone else needs unlimited access, with unlimited control, because the 2nd amendment.
Once again, please read my comments about rocket launchers and tanks above. I agree that that there should be limits, but the problem with government is the limit is an arbitrary line without rational justification and it tends to move towards the side of absolute control and limited freedoms. Just look at what happened with the Federal Income Tax in 1913. It was a flat 3% on incomes over $800. It has increased a bit since then... The federal government's power is the camel's nose under the tent flap.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
I don't feel, but know that was the case. Please read Federalist Papers 29 and 46.
I agree! So you should be required to join the state militia to have that gun and you can be registered and regulated by that state. (btw I know about Heller...) Perfect! Let's fight it out, state by state, since Hamilton didn't really like the concept of a federal government army, and if we had a national army we wouldn't be truly free! My guess is you don't support disbanding the army now do you?

:oops:

Using the framers (and specifically the Federalist Papers) as a rational reason for gun ownership today is like cherry picking the Bible for a verse that tells the story you want to hear. Hamilton wanted to protect our country from the horrors he knew. He was big into state militias and big against federal standing armies. He didn't know of the horrors that our current technology would allow. He didn't know what a bomb was... but to your point, we regulate it today. It isn't arbitrary. The question is why do people think that they have a right to have a weapon that isn't regulated? I will also note that in the 18th century we regulated guns. Slaves and Native Americans couldn't own them. White people could though...

If you can imagine Hamilton today, I am pretty confident that his concern would not be for the people who have troves of guns, hidden, unregistered, and at the ready. He would be more concerned that our government continues to grow our national debt.

I have still not come up with a good rational reason that we need our citizenry to have unregistered weapons of any sort. The government is made up of democrats and republicans. These parties are not going to allow our "government" to take our guns. There is no rational fear that this will ever occur. Well except if Biden wins. :eek:
 

Suburb Repairman

moderator in moderation
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
7,413
Points
33
Clinton was going to take your guns... but he didn't.

Gore was going to take your guns... I guess we'll never know after election hijinks.

Obama was going to take your guns... but he didn't.

Pelosi was going to take your guns... but she didn't.

The democrats have had PLENTY of opportunities in which they had enough alignment between the legislative and executive branches to make a meaningful attempt at taking your guns. They haven't. They won't. The end.

Quite honestly, the death of the NRA may be enough to help calm the waters. They are the ones chiefly responsible for fanning the flames of the gun fetishists. They are the ones pushing propaganda about self-protection, being ready to rise up against the government, and other such nonsense. All of this, of course, is because they are a gun manufacturing lobby and never represented the interests of gun owners beyond just encouraging gun consumer culture. Take away that fuel, and I start to wonder how much this debate mellows-out on its own to some sensible gun reforms. Then again, we've got bullshit like Q to fill the void.
 

MD Planner

Cyburbian
Messages
2,491
Points
37
Clinton was going to take your guns... but he didn't.

Gore was going to take your guns... I guess we'll never know after election hijinks.

Obama was going to take your guns... but he didn't.

Pelosi was going to take your guns... but she didn't.

The democrats have had PLENTY of opportunities in which they had enough alignment between the legislative and executive branches to make a meaningful attempt at taking your guns. They haven't. They won't. The end.
Word!
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
My guess is you don't support disbanding the army now do you?
Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution.

Using the framers (and specifically the Federalist Papers) as a rational reason for gun ownership today is like cherry picking the Bible for a verse that tells the story you want to hear. Hamilton wanted to protect our country from the horrors he knew. He was big into state militias and big against federal standing armies. He didn't know of the horrors that our current technology would allow. He didn't know what a bomb was... but to your point, we regulate it today. It isn't arbitrary. The question is why do people think that they have a right to have a weapon that isn't regulated? I will also note that in the 18th century we regulated guns. Slaves and Native Americans couldn't own them. White people could though...

If you can imagine Hamilton today, I am pretty confident that his concern would not be for the people who have troves of guns, hidden, unregistered, and at the ready. He would be more concerned that our government continues to grow our national debt.

I have still not come up with a good rational reason that we need our citizenry to have unregistered weapons of any sort. The government is made up of democrats and republicans. These parties are not going to allow our "government" to take our guns. There is no rational fear that this will ever occur. Well except if Biden wins. :eek:
When people question the intent of part of the constitution, it is best to go back to the documents that explain their intent, and it's not just Hamilton, but Madison (who wrote 46) and John Jay also shared what the meaning behind the words were. I think Hamilton would be pissed if he saw what has happened to our country. I think all of them would be. We have departed so far from the intent that it is not even a shadow of what they imagined.

All weapons are regulated in some context and there are some that are still illegal for most people to own. For example, fully automatic weapons and such. There are a lot more regulations than I think most people are willing to admit to.

Once again, I support the vast majority of his gun bill, but not all. A lot of people said the same thing in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Then in 1994, President Clinton signed a bill that put a 10 year moratorium on the sales of 19 different 'assault' weapons. But people like to leave that out of history... There is serious question if it made any difference in reducing crime. I am all for responsible gun ownership, but there has to be a rational reason for the regulation. Too many of the regulations are based on emotion rather than making a serious difference.

Tell you what. If you want to take people's guns away. Go ahead and let me know how well that worked out for you. Also let me ask you, what would you propose? What is the rational threshold to permit one type of weapon and not another. Will the absence of that weapon in folks who purchase it legally make any of us safer?
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
Here's my problem with the intent of the constitution argument. Society changes. The intent at the time was to make sure people could be armed because we just got over this whole jerk of a king problem and wanted to make sure that wasn't going to happen again with the new government and if it did we could stop the government. Today we no longer have that fear. Today's problem is idiots with guns. I'll let you define idiots and which guns or gun accessories idiots should be kept away from. So maybe we can have a rational argument and change things to what society is today.

I also think that there is an argument for differences between guns and gun accessories. Let's say I'm not restricting your access to a gun, but I can restrict items that change their ability like bump stocks, giant capacity magazines, etc. These are not necessarily arms so your rights are not being infringed.

More important, can we get to some rational gun control - I know, it already exists or whatever excuse. I want things like registering guns and maybe doing some research about guns. Start simple.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Here's my problem with the intent of the constitution argument. Society changes.
That is true about a lot of the constitution and why the "framers thought this" argument is so weak. We can interpret their writings based on other writings, and how they crafted our republic. But they did all that based on their understanding of the times. They also put stuff in those documents that is abhorrent today. So it isn't exactly like they are Gods...
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
Here's my problem with the intent of the constitution argument. Society changes. The intent at the time was to make sure people could be armed because we just got over this whole jerk of a king problem and wanted to make sure that wasn't going to happen again with the new government and if it did we could stop the government. Today we no longer have that fear. Today's problem is idiots with guns. I'll let you define idiots and which guns or gun accessories idiots should be kept away from. So maybe we can have a rational argument and change things to what society is today.

I also think that there is an argument for differences between guns and gun accessories. Let's say I'm not restricting your access to a gun, but I can restrict items that change their ability like bump stocks, giant capacity magazines, etc. These are not necessarily arms so your rights are not being infringed.

More important, can we get to some rational gun control - I know, it already exists or whatever excuse. I want things like registering guns and maybe doing some research about guns. Start simple.
That is true about a lot of the constitution and why the "framers thought this" argument is so weak. We can interpret their writings based on other writings, and how they crafted our republic. But they did all that based on their understanding of the times. They also put stuff in those documents that is abhorrent today. So it isn't exactly like they are Gods...
You say it is weak because you don't agree with it. But if the document content and reasoning is so far behind the times, then why is the US Constitution the longest standing constitution on the planet? It is because the words had intent and the established methods to amend it without scrapping the whole thing. Each amendment is a snapshot in history and some where better than others. (ie, could have done without the 16th, 17th, or 18th amendments)

Then push your congressperson to change it if you don't like it. Until then, it is a constitutional right regardless if you like it or not. It was written with particular intentions and to understand what it means I will always go back to those who where there when they approved it.

As for the gun accessories, I agree with everything that DVD suggested. I would be curious on what he feels would be an acceptable number of rounds in a magazine and what is the rational reasoning behind that particular number. For example, right now, simi-automatic shotguns can have no more than 3 rounds. I have no idea on where that number came from.
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
It's hard for me to put rational numbers on amount of ammo. It's like zoning setbacks, they are somewhat arbitrary. Why 5'? why not 4 or 6? It's just a nice number. I think situations might vary depending on the primary use of the gun. If you're duck hunting with a shotgun how man shots can you pull off before the ducks are gone? 1-2? Maybe through in 1-2 more shells just in case you don't have time to reload? I don't know, I've never been duck hunting. Deer hunting you can basically use a bolt action rifle because you're not getting a 2nd shot at that deer. Besides, part of the sport is hitting the animal the first time. Self defense if where it gets harder or easier depending on your view. My time in the Navy we never carried more than 5 rounds in the 15 round clip. It reduces jamming from what I hear. My thought is that if you can't scare off or kill an intruder with 5 shots you really don't need to be carrying a gun and yes 5 is arbitrary, but you have to set a limit somewhere.

The constitution works because we are able to change it on occasion and it's generally a good form of amendments and checks, except lately, but I blame that more on the two party problem than the drafting of our government. What I wish is that we could sit down and have a rational discussion of how to bring it more up to date, but we just can't do that. Nobody wants to compromise.
 

JNA

Cyburbian Plus
Messages
25,777
Points
61
The book, using Trump's own words, depicts a President who has betrayed the public trust and the most fundamental responsibilities of his office.
'Play it down': Trump admits to concealing the true threat of coronavirus in new Woodward book

Trump's Covid-19 response a 'life and death betrayal' of Americans, says Biden
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Sigh... so Trump knew how bad Coronavirus was, but lied. He knew it wasn't anything like the flu, but said it wasn't as bad. He created all these lies about the virus that A LOT of people are still stating.

But it is okay because he was trying to lead by keeping people calm. Wow. This is a new low.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,644
Points
71
Sigh... so Trump knew how bad Coronavirus was, but lied. He knew it wasn't anything like the flu, but said it wasn't as bad. He created all these lies about the virus that A LOT of people are still stating.

But it is okay because he was trying to lead by keeping people calm. Wow. This is a new low.
True Believers will be convinced that Woodward - as part of a vast liberal conspiracy - made up a pack of lies (including that one) to betray Trump and will not be convinced otherwise. Others who've observed his behavior patterns over the past four years will think there is more than a little truth to the claim.
 

Maister

Chairman of the bored
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
28,644
Points
71
There are actual audio tapes. Going to be hard to deny this one.
Fake. Manufactured. Anyone can do it nowadays.

Joking aside, if Woodward wanted to do the US a solid he'd release that recording like now. Don't know if it'd move the needle but it needs to be done.
 

gtpeach

Cyburbian
Messages
2,100
Points
21
There are actual audio tapes. Going to be hard to deny this one.
I don't think it matters, honestly. I have seen very committed vets blowing off reports of his derogatory comments about the military. I feel like people are so desensitized (unless they have been personally impacted) by COVID and death rates that this won't feel overly significant to his die-hard supporters.

I'm kind of worried about how this sets the American public up to perceive and understand the responsibilities of the POTUS in the future. Trump is incredibly corrupt and inept. Yet, I've become really weary of just constantly being outraged and choose to often times just disengage from being informed and frustrated. I just worry that this sets me (and a significant percent of our population) up to not care enough moving forward that this becomes common and expected and just the way things are in good, ol' America.

Watergate feels like such a minor scandal compared to what's been happening over the last four years.
 

Gedunker

Moderating
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
11,483
Points
41
What especially bothers me is the explanation - he needed to be untruthful so the American people wouldn't panic. WTF? We didn't panic after 9/11 or Pearl Harbor or Ft. Sumter. We didn't panic when covid-19 actually started showing up in our states and cities. (Okay, toilet paper and hand sanitizer did get runs, but that was to be expected.)

If you have and can explain a rational plan for protecting everybody and containing the novel coronavirus, there is no chance of causing a panic. But of course, Trump didn't have a plan ... so he had to lie.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
Let me ask a question that is borderline political. If you were a woman who was attacked and sexually assaulted by a guy, how would you feel when you see people honoring him for wrongs done against him to the point of professional players in several sports wearing his name on their jerseys and getting a visit from a presidential candidate?

Or maybe more specifically, I wonder how the woman that Jacob Blake assaulted feels.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
Let me ask a question that is borderline political. If you were a woman who was attacked and sexually assaulted by a guy, how would you feel when you see people honoring him for wrongs done against him to the point of professional players in several sports wearing his name on their jerseys and getting a visit from a presidential candidate?

Or maybe more specifically, I wonder how the woman that Jacob Blake assaulted feels.
Never should something like that be downplayed. He clearly did something wrong, and he should have to account for that crime (which I don't think anyone believes didn't happen. It was a woman he knew and it seems from the facts provided that he is likely guilty of that and a number of other crimes.

How would anyone know how that woman should feel? Do you imagine she hoped that he was shot in the back multiple times? How would you know that?

I don't know how all the women whom deal with stupid sh!t men do to them all the time feel. Why would you imagine anyone knows how she feels? If you are insinuating that we shouldn't feel anger at the situation because he wasn't a good guy, I disagree. I may not believe that anyone who was harmed was a good person or not, but I do believe that the situation was wrong and was handled wrong. This is like the question of whether Breona Taylor was in a drug situation, etc. Does that come into play in terms of the risk she was putting herself in life... sure, but she certainly shouldn't have died by the hands of the police.

This comes up mainly by Republicans who want to use this as a reason that the conversation around the police responses has been misframed, and unfair to police because the person whom the police were dealing with was "bad". My problem is most of those people are fine with Trump, whom is well known to have done LOTS of illegal and unsavory things to women.

So how do you imagine those women feel about seeing their attacker as President of the United States?
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
For the start of the season, the players around the NFL has the initials or names of people who were shot by police.

But 4 years ago, the NFL denied the Dallas from showing support for police officers that were ambushed. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cb...pporting-dallas-police-in-regular-season/amp/
And? Is there a question there? Is the question why does the NFL support its player's concerns or policy interests and not its ownership's interests? Or is the question why does the NFL not support Police officers explicitly?

Why should they? They certainly were shown to be wrong about the Colin Koepernick stuff, so my guess is that the NFL is going to be much more supportive of its players in the future.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
And? Is there a question there? Is the question why does the NFL support its player's concerns or policy interests and not its ownership's interests? Or is the question why does the NFL not support Police officers explicitly?

Why should they? They certainly were shown to be wrong about the Colin Koepernick stuff, so my guess is that the NFL is going to be much more supportive of its players in the future.
The question is why is the NFL willing to pick and choose what they allow people to support. They were also certainly wrong about the NFL loosing their freaking minds when Tim Tebow started taking a knee to pray.

Did anyone have the name of Ryan Hendrix on their jersey? Was their anyone in the NFL who had the names of the two officers that were ambushed in Los Angeles or took a moment to recognize support for them yesterday? (I seriously don't know the answer to this because I refused to watch the NFL because of the recent hypocrisy)

Likely not. But what did happen was protesters gathered around the hospital in LA where the two ambushed officers chanting "let them die". This is the world that we live in. People want to know how anyone can support Trump, it is because of crap like this.
 

Hink

OH....IO
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
15,825
Points
52
The question is why is the NFL willing to pick and choose what they allow people to support. They were also certainly wrong about the NFL loosing their freaking minds when Tim Tebow started taking a knee to pray.

Did anyone have the name of Ryan Hendrix on their jersey? Was their anyone in the NFL who had the names of the two officers that were ambushed in Los Angeles or took a moment to recognize support for them yesterday? (I seriously don't know the answer to this because I refused to watch the NFL because of the recent hypocrisy)

Likely not. But what did happen was protesters gathered around the hospital in LA where the two ambushed officers chanting "let them die". This is the world that we live in. People want to know how anyone can support Trump, it is because of crap like this.
As you are aware, the BLM and other movements that are occurring now, are different from the past and the NFL is supporting its players because they have been pressured beyond their ability to say no. I would put a lot of money that says they would have held out if they could saying what the article you posted states: The NFL doesn't want to open pandora's box with this stuff because everyone supports something different.

With that said, this is clearly different. It is clearly unique. It is good the NFL is listening to its players. I am not sure why you think that is bad or hypocritical of them to have the position they do.

Are you aware of any player that wanted to have Ryan Hendrix on their jersey? Or any other player who is mad about the position that the NFL is taking? Most are supportive. They may not kneel, because of a slew of reasons, but they play with guys for whom this is deeply personal and they understand they will never understand the pain they have felt... so they support them.

Why does it bother you so much that the NFL has begun to support its players? Or do you just think they shouldn't be supporting the cause they are supporting?
 

DVD

Cyburbian
Messages
14,943
Points
51
Let me ask a question that is borderline political. If you were a woman who was attacked and sexually assaulted by a guy, how would you feel when you see people honoring him for wrongs done against him to the point of professional players in several sports wearing his name on their jerseys and getting a visit from a presidential candidate?

Or maybe more specifically, I wonder how the woman that Jacob Blake assaulted feels.
I hate this argument. It's whataboutism and it's wrong. It's trying to justify some guy getting shot 7 times in the back by saying he was a bad guy so it's okay. I feel for the victims of his crimes, but I don't know if he paid for those crimes or not and it still doesn't justify 7 shots.

If we're using that same arguments logic with the NFL players, think about the player who was harassed by police for being black. Think about the player who lost family or friends because they we're illegally stopped and jailed or killed by police. I will bet that every black player has a story to tell. I'm sure they feel bad for the officers that were murdered, but they don't hold much love for police in general. The point is they are trying to bring attention to the problem of racism, not the problem of ambushing police officers.
 

Planit

Cyburbian
Messages
13,131
Points
54
Okay. I’ll play:

What about Heather Heyer?
What about Joseph Rosenbaum?
What about Anthony Huber?


All killed by racists.
 

michaelskis

Cyburbian
Messages
20,157
Points
51
Why does it bother you so much that the NFL has begun to support its players? Or do you just think they shouldn't be supporting the cause they are supporting?
I have no problem with them supporting the BLM movement. I think it is terrific. I have a problem that they are not all inclusive of other movements including the safety of our first responders. I think that if you are going to open the doors that much, be sure that they are open to everyone.

Okay. I’ll play:

What about Heather Heyer?
What about Joseph Rosenbaum?
What about Anthony Huber?

All killed by racists.
That is a wonderful question. Same goes for Vanessa Guillen.
 

mendelman

Unfrozen Caveman Planner
Staff member
Moderator
Messages
13,891
Points
56
I have no problem with them supporting the BLM movement. I think it is terrific. I have a problem that they are not all inclusive of other movements including the safety of our first responders. I think that if you are going to open the doors that much, be sure that they are open to everyone.
I presume you are also boycotting other private corporations doing effectively the same as the NFL?

As a private corporation, the NFL has certain inalienable rights to operate themselves legally and you have the same or similar inalienable rights to legally 'boycott' them as you see fit.

But I know you know the difference.
 
Last edited:
Top