President Trump- The Implications

[TeeDub]

"We already have gone too far down the road on which our employers presume to have some sort of right to control us in our off hours. "


Right.   That never happened before Trump.    People didn't get penalized at work for doing stupid or inappropriate things during their personal life.

[Ed W]

One of the few opinion pieces I thought was an absolute pleasure to read;  by SI of all places:

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/09/13/jemele-hill-espn-donald-trump-white-supremacist-statement

So the guy who surrounded himself with white supremacists and sided with armed Nazis, insisting they have a free speech interest in carrying guns at a protest, this guy and his sycophants want a woman fired because she spoke an obvious truth?  

[swake]

So the guy who surrounded himself with white supremacists and sided with armed Nazis, insisting they have a free speech interest in carrying guns at a protest, this guy and his sycophants want a woman fired because she spoke an obvious truth?  

Where are the right wing "free speech" advocates complaining about Trump trying to shut up a critic. Again.

[Red Arrow]

Where are the right wing "free speech" advocates complaining about Trump trying to shut up a critic. Again.

Wyoming

[cannon_fodder]

Right.   That never happened before Trump.    People didn't get penalized at work for doing stupid or inappropriate things during their personal life.

But we aren't talking about "people,"  we are talking about the President of the United States trying to use his influence to punish someone for saying negative things about him.  It is the absolute highest level of government "suggesting" that someone be punished for exercising their 1st Amendment right.  You don't see a difference?

This is the official spokesperson of the President of the United States calling upon a television network to fire one of its highest profile employees because she was mean to the president online.

It isn't normal behavior for the President of the United States to try to get a sports commentator fired because they said means things about the President. That's what despots and dictators do.  It's what happens in Mother Russia and Communist China.  If you speak out too loudly against the dear leader or Comrade Putin, the leader or the party uses state influence to try to ruin you.  Causing your employer to fire you is an excellent starting position. Rarely does it need to escalate to actual state action to infringe someones most basic rights.

Seriously, this was an attempt to use the influence of the President to get someone fired for criticizing the President of the United States.  It is somewhat less concerning because it was done in response to a question and like most things Trump isn't a well thought out policy, but that people think its OK is very concerning.  Criticizing our government is so important that is the first enumerated right our founding fathers decided to put down.

Our current leader, certainly his official spokesperson, and most of his followers don't understand that.  I'm sad that this seems to include you.

[heironymouspasparagus]

It isn't normal behavior for the President of the United States to try to get a sports commentator fired because they said means things about the President. That's what despots and dictators do.  It's what happens in Mother Russia and Communist China.  If you speak out too loudly against the dear leader or Comrade Putin, the leader or the party uses state influence to try to ruin you.  Causing your employer to fire you is an excellent starting position. Rarely does it need to escalate to actual state action to infringe someones most basic rights.

Seriously, this was an attempt to use the influence of the President to get someone fired for criticizing the President of the United States.  It is somewhat less concerning because it was done in response to a question and like most things Trump isn't a well thought out policy, but that people think its OK is very concerning.  Criticizing our government is so important that is the first enumerated right our founding fathers decided to put down.

Our current leader, certainly his official spokesperson, and most of his followers don't understand that.  I'm sad that this seems to include you.

It's what we have seen from the get-go with Trump.  Nixon did the same thing.

[Ed W]

Nixon had an enemies list. I suspect Trump has one prominently atop his desk.

[patric]

But we aren't talking about "people,"  we are talking about the President of the United States trying to use his influence to punish someone for saying negative things about him.  It is the absolute highest level of government "suggesting" that someone be punished for exercising their 1st Amendment right.  You don't see a difference?


It isn't normal behavior for the President of the United States to try to get a sports commentator fired because they said means things about the President. That's what despots and dictators do.  It's what happens in Mother Russia and Communist China.  If you speak out too loudly against the dear leader or Comrade Putin, the leader or the party uses state influence to try to ruin you.  Causing your employer to fire you is an excellent starting position. Rarely does it need to escalate to actual state action to infringe someones most basic rights.

Seriously, this was an attempt to use the influence of the President to get someone fired for criticizing the President of the United States.  It is somewhat less concerning because it was done in response to a question and like most things Trump isn't a well thought out policy, but that people think its OK is very concerning.  Criticizing our government is so important that is the first enumerated right our founding fathers decided to put down.

Our current leader, certainly his official spokesperson, and most of his followers don't understand that.  I'm sad that this seems to include you.

The complaint references a law banning specific federal employees—including those who work for the executive branch, like a White House press secretary—from influencing the employment decisions of a private company "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation." In other words, the exact thing that Sanders did is a thing that you're not supposed to do

https://www.avclub.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-facing-ethics-complaint-after-ca-1818492654

[erfalf]

The complaint references a law banning specific federal employees—including those who work for the executive branch, like a White House press secretary—from influencing the employment decisions of a private company "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation." In other words, the exact thing that Sanders did is a thing that you're not supposed to do

https://www.avclub.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-facing-ethics-complaint-after-ca-1818492654

Calling the president a white supremacist isn't exactly a right or left partisan attack. It's pretty personal when you get down to it. She didn't say he was acting like a white supremacist, she said he "is" a white supremacist. I'm no attorney, so maybe there is no difference.

[guido911]

But we aren't talking about "people,"  we are talking about the President of the United States trying to use his influence to punish someone for saying negative things about him.  It is the absolute highest level of government "suggesting" that someone be punished for exercising their 1st Amendment right.  You don't see a difference?


It isn't normal behavior for the President of the United States to try to get a sports commentator fired because they said means things about the President. That's what despots and dictators do.  It's what happens in Mother Russia and Communist China.  If you speak out too loudly against the dear leader or Comrade Putin, the leader or the party uses state influence to try to ruin you.  Causing your employer to fire you is an excellent starting position. Rarely does it need to escalate to actual state action to infringe someones most basic rights.

Seriously, this was an attempt to use the influence of the President to get someone fired for criticizing the President of the United States.  It is somewhat less concerning because it was done in response to a question and like most things Trump isn't a well thought out policy, but that people think its OK is very concerning.  Criticizing our government is so important that is the first enumerated right our founding fathers decided to put down.

Our current leader, certainly his official spokesperson, and most of his followers don't understand that.  I'm sad that this seems to include you.

Whiners gotta whine. Didn't realize the real victim in all of this was Jemele Hill, the person that accused the President of being a white supremacist, and accused those that voted for him as being white supremacists. Boo damned hoo.

Next time, Trump or Sanders needs to just say "ESPN [or Jemele Hill] 'acted stupidly.'" That's apparently acceptable behavior from the president.

[guido911]

The complaint references a law banning specific federal employees—including those who work for the executive branch, like a White House press secretary—from influencing the employment decisions of a private company "solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation." In other words, the exact thing that Sanders did is a thing that you're not supposed to do

https://www.avclub.com/sarah-huckabee-sanders-facing-ethics-complaint-after-ca-1818492654

Seriously, Univision?  Bahahaha. Love when I get called out for my sourcing. No axe to grind there.

And where did Sanders say she wanted Hill fired solely because she is a democrat or because of her political affiliation? As an FYI, here is the statute a democrat Super Pac based its complaint on:

(a) Whoever, being a covered government person, with the intent to influence, solely on the basis of partisan political affiliation, an employment decision or employment practice of any private entity—
(1) takes or withholds, or offers or threatens to take or withhold, an official act, or
(2) influences, or offers or threatens to influence, the official act of another,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 15 years, or both, and may be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
(b) In this section, the term "covered government person" means—
(1) a Senator or Representative in, or a Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress;
(2) an employee of either House of Congress; or
(3) the President, Vice President, an employee of the United States Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, or any other executive branch employee (as such term is defined under section 2105 of title 5, United States Code).

Oh well. Another day to be offended.

[TeeDub]

What do you expect when you also think it is racist to read a person's resume?   


"A Democratic congresswoman said drawing attention to a colleague's first job in the fast food industry is racist. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D., Ohio) criticized Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) for pointing out that Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), the Senate's only black Republican, began his career working at Chick-fil-A at a Wednesday House committee debate over franchising regulations. Wilson had mentioned Scott's work experience to demonstrate that entry-level workers can learn valuable lessons on the job, which can contribute to later success."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-rep-reading-senators-resume-racist/

[Conan71]

What do you expect when you also think it is racist to read a person's resume?   


"A Democratic congresswoman said drawing attention to a colleague's first job in the fast food industry is racist. Rep. Marcia Fudge (D., Ohio) criticized Rep. Joe Wilson (R., S.C.) for pointing out that Sen. Tim Scott (R., S.C.), the Senate's only black Republican, began his career working at Chick-fil-A at a Wednesday House committee debate over franchising regulations. Wilson had mentioned Scott's work experience to demonstrate that entry-level workers can learn valuable lessons on the job, which can contribute to later success."

http://freebeacon.com/politics/dem-rep-reading-senators-resume-racist/

Insert mother-of-all-face-palms here

[guido911]

Insert mother-of-all-face-palms here

Here's the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUIQqqaljto

[patric]

Oh well. Another day to be offended.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/18/hobby-lobby-controversy-erupts-after-woman-complains-about-racist-cotton-display/23214195/