Clinton campaign to participate in the Wisconsin recount

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

1. I don't think a desire to impose penalty for desecrating our national symbol rises to vindictiveness though. How is he seeking revenge in promoting a law? He doesn't even know who will break that law yet, if it gets written and passed. Further, he can't write laws anyway.

2. You may have something here. If he is in fact looking to cause CNN anguish or hurt, it may well be in revenge for their bias. I say his vindictiveness is vindicated by their vindictiveness. I see it more as using the bully pulpit (though it's not officially his pulpit yet) to effect change in a clearly broken media. Obama didn't hesitate to belittle Fox.

So you hear Trump in a cool, dispassionate pondering of consequences there, in the flag thing? I can't believe that, because I know where the desire for this law comes from, and that is emotional ire at, as you say, 'desecration' of a symbol. A lot of emotional ire obviously--that word, desecration, means to offend something sacred, this is, taken literally, holy. Serious stuff. Serious offense. If you're into that religion anyway.

But are we supposed to punish people in this free country for not partaking of the civic religion? Well maybe a little*. It does really offend some people, and a person ought to know that, and show some consideration. But what punishment?

Well, if I'm out in public and I call you mother a slimy bitch that puts it up for pigs (just for an example, not really OK), but if I do that, and the deputy hears it and hauls me off, what the punsihment? 15 days for disturbing the peace, right, and not for dissing your mother, but just for being purposefully obnoxious.

So why is burning a flag worse than that? I call it vindictiveness, by which I mean one is full of emotional offense at the thought of the thing, and wants a bigger hurt laid on the perp. As i see it, one can be vindictive as a general idea, without having to want to hurt a named individual for an actual offense.


* No, don't think so.

[Wasillaguy]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

So you hear Trump in a cool, dispassionate pondering of consequences there, in the flag thing? I can't believe that, because I know where the desire for this law comes from, and that is emotional ire at, as you say, 'desecration' of a symbol. A lot of emotional ire obviously--that word, desecration, means to offend something sacred, this is, taken literally, holy. Serious stuff. Serious offense. If you're into that religion anyway.

But are we supposed to punish people in this free country for not partaking of the civic religion? Well maybe a little*. It does really offend some people, and a person ought to know that, and show some consideration. But what punishment?

Well, if I'm out in public and I call you mother a slimy bitch that puts it up for pigs (just for an example, not really OK), but if I do that, and the deputy hears it and hauls me off, what the punsihment? 15 days for disturbing the peace, right, and not for dissing your mother, but just for being purposefully obnoxious.

So why is burning a flag worse than that? I call it vindictiveness, by which I mean one is full of emotional offense at the thought of the thing, and wants a bigger hurt laid on the perp. As i see it, one can be vindictive as a general idea, without having to want to hurt a named individual for an actual offense.


* No, don't think so.

1. I didn't say his take on the flag was dispassionate, it's just not vindictive. By your private definition, anyone passionately advocating for a new law or stricter penalties is vindictive. In fact you are careening toward saying any punishment for crime is vindictive.

2. While the etymology of the word "desecrate" is in reference to something sacred, the use of the word evolved beyond that point long ago. Please look at a reputable dictionary, and look beyond the first definition.

3. Now, about your mother (just for example, of course). I'm sure she's a lovely person and I have no desire to denigrate her. I suspect she has enough woes, having birthed someone of your ilk.

[donquixote99]

Everyone has their own private definition for every word, and no two are precisely the same.

By your private definition, anyone passionately advocating for a new law or stricter penalties is vindictive.

Don't think I'd necessarily say 'anyone,' but basically I'd say communication has occurred.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Wasillaguy

1. I didn't say his take on the flag was dispassionate, it's just not vindictive. By your private definition, anyone passionately advocating for a new law or stricter penalties is vindictive. In fact you are careening toward saying any punishment for crime is vindictive.

2. While the etymology of the word "desecrate" is in reference to something sacred, the use of the word evolved beyond that point long ago. Please look at a reputable dictionary, and look beyond the first definition.

3. Now, about your mother (just for example, of course). I'm sure she's a lovely person and I have no desire to denigrate her. I suspect she has enough woes, having birthed someone of your ilk.

1. Burning the flag is protected free speech.
2. You cannot strip any American of his or her citizenship.
3. Trump is dumb enough not to know this or smart enough to get people emotionally aroused with some bullshit red meat talking points by spouting nonsense like this. I hope it is the latter but I fear the former.

[icenine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...b04fcaa4d5d8c3

[Rajoo]

It's far from the first time that the legality of flag desecration has come to the forefront. Individual states began passing flag-protection laws in the 1800s, with the first comprehensive federal law taking effect during the Vietnam Era. A pair of Supreme Court cases ruled that flag-burning was protected by the First Amendment (with conservative stalwart Antonin Scalia siding with the majority in both decisions).

Still, attempts have been made to draft bills that would meet with the Supreme Court's approval. In 2005, with flag burners protesting the Iraq War, the Flag Protection Act of 2005 would have criminalized burning flags if the primary intent was "to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace." (Mellow, laid-back flag-burnings would still be OK, apparently.) Who backed such a bill? Funny story, one of the co-sponsors was New York Senator Hillary Clinton. The proposed penalty was ... wait for it ... up to a year in prison, and up to a $100,000 fine. The bill was introduced, but never passed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/nlette...-war/94653592/

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

http://www.usatoday.com/story/nlette...-war/94653592/

Introducing bills than no one plans to pass is a popular and generally low-cost means of political posturing.

Speaking of which "LOOK (Mnuchin for Treasury) AT THAT SQUIRREL BURNING A FLAG!"

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

I think your problem is that it doesn't seem like a bad thing, to you, but you know 'vindictiveness' is a word for a bad thing.

1. Desire to impose a harsh punishment on person making a symbolic statement.

2. Desire to dis CNN, presumably because of unfavorable commentary.

Trump speaks his mind.

I like that about him.

It makes him like a real person instead of some carefully programed robot who never says anything that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by staff and focus groups first, ie Hillary Clinton.

He's a lot like Joe Biden in that respect, and I like Joe too.

Because he does this he occasionally he says things that he's going to have to back away from. Obviously the flag burning thing isn't going to fly.

BFD.

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Introducing bills than no one plans to pass is a popular and generally low-cost means of political posturing.

Speaking of which "LOOK (Mnuchin for Treasury) AT THAT SQUIRREL BURNING A FLAG!"

It's my way of thawing ice.

[barbara]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Trump speaks his mind.



I like that about him.



It makes him like a real person instead of some carefully programed robot who never says anything that hasn't been thoroughly vetted by staff and focus groups first, ie Hillary Clinton.



He's a lot like Joe Biden in that respect, and I like Joe too.



Because he does this he occasionally he says things that he's going to have to back away from. Obviously the flag burning thing isn't going to fly.



BFD.

I like a person who speaks their mind, too...... As long as they have a mind worth listening to.

Trump's bluster, lies, and bullying indicates his mind simply isn't worth listening to.

I'd rather hear from someone who thinks logically, has integrity, and speaks his mind.