Trump-BOYCOTT NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: Grambler

A company has a right to do what they want within the law.

What some of you are missing here is one the president has told American consumers what to consume which is somewhat unethical.

Two he is pressuring business owners to abandon their 1st amendment rights and agree with his (the government) view point.

This issue is beyond stupid and the president should be doing actual work not furthering the American division.

It's the biggest gripe I heard over Obama and now it's like the opposition is ready to do the same.

It's a huge sheep show.

I don't think trump should be on this either.

But unethical? More like uneeded.

Trump is allowed to have an opinion. Obama thought Imus should be fired.

Politicians say but American all of the time. It's dumb, but not unethical.

He is not silencing people's first amendmen t.

a reply to: Grambler

Yes boardering on unethical.

It's not far off from everybody buy more of X products.

It's not something the president should do.

He is pressuring owners to surpress their rights. The president's words have a certain weight and can be almost a threat with the amount of subversion power he can levy against business. I mean the owners 1st amen rights not the employees.

Like when Obama raided say Gibson guitars.

The owners have a right to not be harrase by the government over their 1st amendment rights.

So what if Trump's words work and people do stop going to games. Is that government interference in commerce? I think a lawyer could probably have a decent case.

Especially because the players are community activists many working with police dept which makes his statements defamation.

Would it be OK for the president to say everybody stop buying Pepsi because I like coke?

a reply to: Grambler

The problem is that it is clear Trump desperately wants to repeal everyone's First Amendment rights. His nonstop attacks on the free press are just the tip of the iceberg.

a reply to: Tempter

So you think Trump should be able to silence the owners first amendment rights?

You believe he should be able to use the government to supress commerce for the 1st amenmendant rights of the business owners?

Is it defamation if the players he is talking about actively work with police dept and the community?

So prior to Trumo's speech you watched the NFL but since something changed?

I agree with Trump sometimes and disagree with him other times, I disagree with him this time because of the 1st amendment which has already been tested at the supreme court in the flag salute cases in the 20th century.

Flag Salute Cases

Those players have a right to do what they are doing. Now if others want to express their feelings about it, that is their right too. But they shouldn't be expelled or suspended.

Trump is wrong on this one.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I agree with Trump sometimes and disagree with him other times, I disagree with him this time because of the 1st amendment which has already been tested at the supreme court in the flag salute cases in the 20th century.

Flag Salute Cases

Those players have a right to do what they are doing. Now if others want to express their feelings about it, that is their right too. But they shouldn't be expelled or suspended.

Trump is wrong on this one.

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it. It's whether if people agree with it. And apparently not everyone does as indicated by declining ratings of the NFL and ESPN.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it.

Except for the guy who said "these son's of bitches should be fired". I think that was the leader of the free world, but I might be wrong.

a reply to: Kandinsky

It's the same with Reagan and Bush (H.W., not Dubya). Going back and watching them debate in 1980 is like a breath of fresh air compared to the more recent presidential debates. I still disagree with many of their administration's policies & scandals, but at least they knew how to operate with composure, respect, well thought out positions, dignity, and with "class" (I normally don't like referring to social behavior as "class/classy").

In contrast, today's president is tweeting insults against NFL & NBA players like the NBA's 2 time MVP Steph Curry. Steph's wife Ayesha responded to Trump's tweet against her husband with a simple tweet that says "Okay... Donate to earthquake relief here!!!" and then linked to UNICEF's "Earthquake Relief Efforts in Mexico" page. (HERE) It should never get to the point where the President of the United States has to be scolded to help one of our 3 largest trade partners when they're undergoing a major crisis in their capital city. This is surreal.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Can yu show a direct correlation between the two?

Last time I read it's about the number of social media outlets you can use to get the information and don't have to watch the game or a single sports network.

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it.

Except for the guy who said "these son's of bitches should be fired". I think that was the leader of the free world, but I might be wrong.

He's saying they can still do it, if they do they should be fired. Just like I have the right to go into work tomorrow and call my boss an asshole. But I can be fired for doing so.

a reply to: UnBreakable

The owners have spoken so is he pressuring owners to give up there 1st amend as owners?

a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it. It's whether if people agree with it. And apparently not everyone does as indicated by declining ratings of the NFL and ESPN.

There are people in this very thread who've argued that those players don't have first amendment rights when on the job.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it.

Except for the guy who said "these son's of bitches should be fired". I think that was the leader of the free world, but I might be wrong.

He's saying they can still do it, if they do they should be fired. Just like I have the right to go into work tomorrow and call my boss an asshole. But I can be fired for doing so.

Two different issues.

If the players called their manager or owner an asshole, that might warrant firing, but simply kneeling in protest is completely different.

WATCH: NFL players, coaches and owner take knees and lock arms at London game in defiance of Trump

Getting a jump on NFL games in the United States, players, coaches and one owner either took a knee or locked arms at a game being played at London’s Wembley Stadium early Sunday morning.

The Baltimore Ravens and the Jacksonville Jaguars are playing their game overseas on Sunday and, as the national anthem was played, more players than usual dropped to one knee or linked arms with coaches in a severe rebuke to President Donald Trump who set off a firestorm Friday night after attacking ex-NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick.

In photos posted to Twitter, Jaguars owner Shahid Khan was also seen locking arms on the sideline with players.

www.rawstory.com...



This is American ideals in action.

Even after Kapernick was ostracized & the orange idiot threatened their livelihoods with his klanazi ignorance, players & coaches defy the hatred of the anti-American rhetoric from the alt-rights idiot in chief to show solidarity with the disenfranchised.

That's America at her finest.

K~

a reply to: Liquesence

Calling names is a fire-able offense, and the taking a knee is will be a fine only when add revenues plummet to a point of making this touchy issue worth the fight for the NFL.

The NFL is not about football, it is about money, or what most call a business.

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: ColoradoJens
a reply to: UnBreakable

I don't think anyone's questioning their right to do it.

Except for the guy who said "these son's of bitches should be fired". I think that was the leader of the free world, but I might be wrong.

He's saying they can still do it, if they do they should be fired. Just like I have the right to go into work tomorrow and call my boss an asshole. But I can be fired for doing so.

So not only is he questioning their right to do it, he saying outright they should be punished for it. Keep up the word salad.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: UnBreakable

Can yu show a direct correlation between the two?

Sure, I'll be happy to do the research for you.

Survey: National Anthem Protests Top Reason For NFL Ratings Drop

BOSTON (CBS) — Last season’s surprising decline in NFL TV ratings happened for a number of possible reasons. A new survey suggests that player-led national anthem protests, led by then-49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick, were a bigger factor than many may have previously believed. In fact, they may have been the biggest.

As reported by ESPN’s Darren Rovell on Thursday, a new survey by J.D. Power polled 9,200 people who attended at least one football, basketball, or hockey game in 2016 and asked whether they had watched less than last year. Of those that watched fewer games, 26 percent cited the national anthem protests as the reason they watched less, while 24 percent cited either the NFL’s off-field problems with domestic violence or its issues with the pace of TV broadcasts.

boston.cbslocal.com...

a reply to: UnBreakable

I guess most of those fans weren't around prior to 2009.

a reply to: seasonal

That will never happen.

The players/employees are also to be considered. You may not be aware of this buy many of these players lifted themselves up from poverty to exceed the expectations of their society.

Thr president has no place trying to change commerce because of his personal beliefs.

a reply to: ColoradoJens

I find it hilarious when trump supporters use polls for arguments. Particularly without reading the details.