Who is worse, Bergdahl or Trump, the deserter or the war dodger?

Again, serious questions:

Does one have to suffer negative consequences when standing up for what they believe in?

I don't think any rational person believes that cops are driving around looking to kill negroes. But there are a lot of stories where blacks are shot in seeming benign situations by cops who are a "little too nervous" to give them the (huge) benefit of the doubt.

Why isn't protesting the constant acquittal of the police in these situations not worthy of respect while a showboating boxer who made the claim that his tax bill paid for three bombers as justification for not doing his American duty is?
Ali was not protesting while in the ring. He did it on his own time, which I fully support any athlete doing in the current situation. They get paid to play football on game day. Just play the damn game on game day, and then protest all they like the next six days. No problemo. They have all the opportunity in the world to get their message out, without all the game day drama.
 
Ali was not protesting while in the ring. He did it on his own time, which I fully support any athlete doing in the current situation. They get paid to play football on game day. Just play the damn game on game day, and then protest all they like the next six days. No problemo. They have all the opportunity in the world to get their message out, without all the game day drama.

I never understood that argument. What does gameday have to do with anything? Isn't that an issue between employers and it's employee's union?

Personally, what I saw was an issue that was being handled in the private sector by employees, employers and the customers; then the president weighed in and used his bully pulpit to coerce the employers to deny the free speech of those employees through fear of retribution. And the coercion wasn't you boycotting them. It was the NFL's legal monopoly status which affords them all sorts of tax breaks and allows for anti-competitive behavior. And this was all done so that he can release a tax reform plan, that does nothing for 99% of the population and does very little for .9% of the population, without his base recognizing it.
 
I never understood that argument. What does gameday have to do with anything? Isn't that an issue between employers and it's employee's union?

Personally, what I saw was an issue that was being handled in the private sector by employees, employers and the customers; then the president weighed in and used his bully pulpit to coerce the employers to deny the free speech of those employees through fear of retribution. And the coercion wasn't you boycotting them. It was the NFL's legal monopoly status which affords them all sorts of tax breaks and allows for anti-competitive behavior. And this was all done so that he can release a tax reform plan, that does nothing for 99% of the population and does very little for .9% of the population, without his base recognizing it.

Except you would be perfectly OK with Democratic F.D.R. using his radio broadcast bully pulpit to demean sports teams in the 1930s who did not respect the American flag to coerce them to alter their behavior.
 
Except you would be perfectly OK with Democratic F.D.R. using his radio broadcast bully pulpit to demean sports teams in the 1930s who did not respect the American flag to coerce them to alter their behavior.

Was this in FDR's radio fireside chats? In the middle of the great depression and the rise of global communism? I believe I have read most of that, a long time ago. I don't recall perhaps so just curious.

Are you speaking about Romney's mistaken claim that FDR instigated the hand over heart? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...5/gIQA5NLKsQ_blog.html?utm_term=.a879036719c5
 
Was this in FDR's radio fireside chats? In the middle of the great depression and the rise of global communism? I believe I have read most of that, a long time ago. I don't recall perhaps so just curious.

Are you speaking about Romney's mistaken claim that FDR instigated the hand over heart? https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...5/gIQA5NLKsQ_blog.html?utm_term=.a879036719c5

Go back and read the history of F.D.R.'s fireside chats -- he used many of them to bully political opponents, re-direct on issues, and undermine businesses owned by opponents. Very much how Trump uses twitter now. Same behavior, different medium.

Of course, F.D.R always ranks in the top 4 most narcissistic presidents. It will be interesting to see if Trump ranks above him eventually.

F.D.R. was on sports teams to display the flag, not anything about the national anthem or hand over heart. He pushed very hard for people to celebrate Flag Day and respect our flag.
 
Except you would be perfectly OK with Democratic F.D.R. using his radio broadcast bully pulpit to demean sports teams in the 1930s who did not respect the American flag to coerce them to alter their behavior.

I don't recall ever saying that.

And I'm not sure what the naricism has to do with this discussion. If they reran that study for today, it's pretty clear Trump would be #1. And from a cursory look at the list, it doesn't seem to correlate with being a good (or effective) president.
 
I don't recall ever saying that.

Editted:

Just pushing the implications of what you or others would likely say if a Democratic president did a similar thing. Most people are viewing this issue through partisan lens - not recognizing that using the bully pulpit on private businesses is something that has been done by many U.S. Presidents. Take a look at what F.D.R. had to say about banks.
 
Just pushing the implications of what you would likely say if a Democratic president did a similar thing.

I don't know the story of FDR and sports teams, so I can't comment.

Can I push implications on what you would likely say given that you believe in the confederate flag for umm.... heritage?
 
I don't know the story of FDR and sports teams, so I can't comment.

Can I push implications on what you would likely say given that you believe in the confederate flag for umm.... heritage?

Actually I believe confederate monuments should be moved to museums or battlefields. I also believe the confederate flag should not be displayed on public property unless the property is an historic battlefield (e.g. Fort Sumter) as part of an educational experience.

I do not believe mobs should be tearing down monuments (like they did in Durham, NC) or flags -- they should work through a legal process to have them moved.

I have stated this previously.
 
Actually I believe confederate monuments should be moved to museums or battlefields. I also believe the confederate flag should not be displayed on public property unless the property is an historic battlefield (e.g. Fort Sumter) as part of an educational experience.

I do not believe mobs should be tearing down monuments (like they did in Durham, NC) or flags -- they should work through a legal process to have them moved.

I have stated this previously.

What you likely would have said based on your posts during the Charlottesville incident would clearly not be a correct assumption.
 
Back
Top