President Trump

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion and Philosophy' started by TIME, Jan 20, 2017.

  1. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    21,222
    Likes Received:
    37,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    1) I agree that players shouldn't be muzzled, but it's within the rights of the owners of the company to tell them how to behave on the field. I disagree with people who say these athletes should shut up and play, but when it comes to what their boss is telling them to do, these guys have to follow those rules.

    2) I don't know the answer to any of this, it seems abstract. If the boss of my company though told us we'd have to do the pledge of allegiance every morning, I'd be weirded out. It's not that I wouldn't want to, but it'd be strange.

    3) The way I see it everyone should be able to do whatever they want. Isn't that the whole point of the country? We have the freedom to do what we want privately? If someone wants to destroy a flag every single day of the year, that's their right I guess. I don't have to like it.

    You know what's strange? The NFL and Goodell put out a notice recently that everyone latched on to in a negative way. I read the notice and yes it said that the NFL wants players standing for the anthem, but it also said that the owners are going to work closely with the NFLPA to try to come up with a different solution. I took that to mean that the NFL would open up the ability to wear clothing or maybe designate a week (and obviously resources) where they dedicate play to whatever it is the NFLPA deems most appropriate. However, nobody took notice of that. All anyone cared about was the kneeling.

    And just from a pure, selfish fan perspective I'm really sick of this ****. I tune into games to get away from everything else for a while and just focus on watching awesome athletes do things I can't do on a field or court or whatever the case may be. I'm sick of tuning in and talking about Trump. I'm sick of worrying about the anthem. Let people do what they want as long as it's not harming anyone else. Peaceful protest is something we're all supposed to have the right to do. I don't have to like it, that doesn't matter. I just want to watch a game where the analysts spend more time talking about the game itself than what the political views of each player is.
     
    Bryant, John3:16 and puffyusaf#2 like this.
  2. puffyusaf#2

    puffyusaf#2 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Author of "Just a Thought"
    Location:
    GNW Doing things
    Offline
    Thanks real.

    1) I would not have a problem if the NFL ownership and NFLPA had agreed that all players would be out for the National Anthem standing in respect for the Anthem. If that was part of their contract I would be all over the players who are now breaking their own contracts. The problem is, and I didn't talk about it in my first message, is that the players are under contract to do certain things. More importantly, in my mind at least, they can't be forced to be patriotic. Even though they had been used for that very purpose without the compensation that said owners got from the government. I personally was happy it made such a uproar and that players started unifying in arms and not simply kneeling but that is my personal point of view. Now if it is discussed and agreed upon like the player conduct policy the NLFPA agreed with then I see fines, suspensions and things but not like this is being reported.

    2. It is abstract but the simple point I was making was if company "A" can do this then company "B" should be able to as well because all things are equal. People are yelling about these "millionaire" players but that is irrelevant to the fact that the NFL is private company with employees that we are saying have to stand and be patriotic. If they have to then everyone has to, right?

    3. We have freedoms but those freedoms are not without consequences. Kapernick chose to take a stand. He used his freedom to do so. He doesn't have a job in the NFL right now because owners are free to hire who they would like on their teams as long as they are not discriminating (or can be proven) for race, sexual orientation, age or religious preferences. Kap, in my opinion, simply is an average QB who would prob have a back up roll somewhere especially if Jay Cutler got back in the league if he hadn't became the focal point of this protest. That is my speculation but either way teams don't have to bring him in.

    As far as your selfish reasons I understand that completely. We all have what we want to watch and hear. I hate listening to other teams announcers talk period but It is what it is. I think people use their platforms the best they can to bring change as they see fit. Some I agree with and some I don't but in the end nothing the players have done has stopped the production of the games themselves. They did not cause delays in any of the proceedings but they did cause people to converse about these important (to some) topics.

    I know John316 and I had a great conversation on this topic. I don't think we do if it hadn't been for these protest.
     
    Weezy, therealdeal and John3:16 like this.
  3. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,412
    Likes Received:
    11,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Online
    Like him or loathe him, you have to respect what Kaepernick has done. Through peaceful protest. One man.

    Pretty amazing.
     
  4. Savory Griddles

    Savory Griddles Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes Received:
    7,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    I'll try to answer:

    1. My personal comment about the money they make was in response to Wilbon's comment about them being slaves and Jerry Jones a plantation owner. If the college team had rules about standing for the anthem, then you need to abide by those rules. People confuse freedom of speech and expression with the right to say what I want whenever I want and expect to see zero reprisal. No one is putting them in jail for kneeling. But if it's the rule or the league/owner, you need to abide by it or face yourself looking for a new job. I can't wear shorts and sandals to work. How long would I last at my job if I started wearing them everyday in protest? I could start wearing Free the Knee T-shirts to voice my displeasure with the no shorts rule. Why would I get fired? Because I am not equal to my boss when it comes to decision making power at my company. He started the company, he owns the company. If every job across the country starts doing what they think is right and not listening to company rules, it'd be anarchy.

    2. I agree with realdeal where #2 is pretty abstract. But there is a difference between displaying patriotism and displaying an outright protest. And the answer to your question: Yes. All American companies, if they were so inclined, could enforce patriotism. But that knife could cut both ways. Just as Jerry can fire them for not standing, players can refuse to sign with the Cowboys. Just like a talented person can choose to work for Google if Apple all of a sudden started to require the pledge of allegiance every morning.

    3. Yes. At the end of the day, we still have (granted it's getting worse every day) relatively free markets. If a company institutes draconian rules, top talent won't work for them and they'll end up having to pay a ton to subpar workers to keep the door open. If the players have a big enough problem with what Jerry is doing, they can quit. Wait out their contract or release, then sign with another team. Eventually Jerry Jones will end up paying 25 million a season to have Johnny Manziel be his quarterback and watch him throw the ball to backup receivers from the CFL at 15 million a pop.
     
    puffyusaf#2 likes this.
  5. Bryant

    Bryant - Rookie -

    Joined:
    May 20, 2015
    Messages:
    265
    Likes Received:
    656
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Online
    I agree about what you said about Kaep, but what's happening now has deviated away from what he was protesting for. We now have a big argument over kneeling or standing during the national anthem, not about the social issues/messages that Kaep brought up when he initially protested. I haven't heard of the social issues or causes that the current NFL players are kneeling for. To me, they are kneeling because they dislike Trump for criticizing them.
     
    therealdeal and John3:16 like this.
  6. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,412
    Likes Received:
    11,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Online
    ^^ the media focuses on how Trump infiltrated this and the mass kneeling of players was in response to Trump. But when people continue talking and the outside noise dies down, we'll be back to the real issue and I believe it's a conversation worth having.
     
    Bryant and puffyusaf#2 like this.
  7. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers Starter -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    4,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    I wonder how many people know that Kaep actually got the idea for kneeling, instead of sitting, from a conversation with a Green Beret Vet who sat down with Colin to discuss this issue like two grown men and listen to each other's side of the story?

    And I wonder how many people would actually understand why the Green Beret suggested kneeling instead of sitting and change their perception.
     
  8. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers Starter -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    4,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    You're right. Because how do a group of White Supremecists and Neo-Nazi's spewing hate speech, carrying very unpatriotic Conferderate flags, be called "very fine people", but NFL players peacefully protesting a controversial topic be called "Sons of B&@ches" without any provocation to Trump directly?

    Trump brought this on himself, but the message is still the same, if anything, it's progressed now into a message of unity for the players against someone who is consistently trying to divide us as a nation, hence the players of ALL races held arms together.
     
    Bryant likes this.
  9. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    21,222
    Likes Received:
    37,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    1) It's a good point. I'd assume they could find some sort of legal clause in the contracts about "conduct on the field" that would qualify as something the owners could use. I would be shocked if there's not something like that in the contract in regards to the owners saying the players can and can't do this or that on the field. If you think about it, the NFL fines players and throws flags for celebrating too much or celebrating inappropriately. If they can do that, they can have something to say about this kneeling business. As for being forced to be patriotic, I don't know about you guys but I was forced to say the pledge of allegiance every day as a kid. I remember one day a kid decided they didn't want to say it and they didn't have to, but they still stood with us and put a hand over their heart.

    2) I think the people complaining about the players would agree that everyone has to. If you pointed out the people who are working at the time, they'd make an excuse. People who are getting generally angry over this stuff are going to get generally angry over anything.

    3) I agree with this take pretty much 100%. I also think Kaepernick had a shot at being on a roster early, but continued to stand for his beliefs and I've heard rumors he wasn't initially comfortable with a bench role which turned owners 100% off.

    I don't mind if players do whatever they want and stand for whatever they want (as long as it doesn't hurt anybody) and I don't mind FOX and ESPN and whomever covering it early on, I can just mute the tv. Once the game gets started, everything should be about the game including the halftime show and the post game show. Let's get back to unifying instead of all this other stuff. We're being made to squabble amongst each other and we should be too smart for that.
     
    puffyusaf#2 likes this.
  10. puffyusaf#2

    puffyusaf#2 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Author of "Just a Thought"
    Location:
    GNW Doing things
    Offline
    Thanks Savory.

    1. The issue I have here is that we are talking about rules that are in-place. You can't wear shorts and sandals to work because you signed a contract that has a dress code of some sort. People under contract are subject to those rules. Now the NFL does have a little catch all rule for doing things detrimental to the image of the NFL (I believe) and this could fall under that, however, the NFLPA can then file a grievance if the players find it excessive or unfair/fit. They have contracts. The NFL can't simply say, you will shut up and color. An owner doesn't just get to do what he/she wants especially when there are unions involved. Unions protect the workers. In this case, the workers are now being forced to do something that is A) not in their contracts and B) not actually enforceable as a requirement for civilian employment. That being said, what is the standard that "every job across the country" is using? I'd assume there is a fair and equal treatment law to ensure that everyone gets the same treatment and are afforded the same rules across the board. Rank has its privileges for sure but that would be extra privileges that does not exclude the basic ones for everyone. If every person who falls under the NFL brand doesn't have to be out there standing and praising the flag then it isn't enforceable in my opinion.

    2. This is the big one for me. I have to disagree that ANY American company can force patriotism. They simply can not do it. The same as they could not force a religion or religious belief on their employees (see lawsuit against Hobby Lobby a few years ago). To put a finer point on it, there is nothing in our Constitution or Laws that says an American must be or must show Patriotism. No civilian can be made to stand for the flag or the anthem period. It isn't a law and it can't be forced. I agree with you that every action is open to reaction and Jerry's action (or reaction I guess is better) will have its own ramification because yea no one cares when the back up or the 2nd tier player gets fined or suspended but what happens if Dak and Zeke both kneel? This was a bad move by Jerry. However, like Therealdeal said in one of his responses the NFL has said it will work with the Players. Each time they try to force this more players will stand up to it.

    3. I agree that this could be a result although I think the NFL would avoid this at all cost.
     
    Barnstable and Weezy like this.
  11. Kentucky Laker

    Kentucky Laker - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2016
    Messages:
    56
    Likes Received:
    207
    Trophy Points:
    33
    Offline
    Trump has tweeted twice in the last 24 hours about news outlets having their license revoked because of being "fake"...I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, this can't be normalized or defended rationally. I can disagree with someone politically all day long, but when they start calling for first amendment rights to be taken away, it's not only abnormal, but despicable and disgraceful. This man is a disgrace to America and what it stands for. It's as simple as that, and in my opinion, grounds for impeachment. Freedom of the press is a basic right in this country and the fact that he wants to threaten shows how dangerous he is to our nation.
     
  12. Azndude2190

    Azndude2190 - Rookie -

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    543
    Likes Received:
    657
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Offline
    It's mostly an empty and meaningless threat, but your point is well taken. Trump has little respect for the rule of law.
     
    Barnstable and John3:16 like this.
  13. John3:16

    John3:16 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2014
    Messages:
    5,412
    Likes Received:
    11,796
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    CEO - Big Baller Brand
    Online

    What's worse: threatening this or creating free speech zones (Bush W) or actually using free speech zones (Obama) ?

    While I agree with you and Azndude that it's reckless (nothing new with Trump), I find the actions of Bush W and Obama to be worse.
     
  14. therealdeal

    therealdeal Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    Messages:
    21,222
    Likes Received:
    37,683
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    It's actually the tweet I've found the most disconcerting. That's the first outright evidence I've seen that he would like to suppress freedoms of the constitution on a mass scale. I understand that NBC is a left leaning company, but so effing what? Fox has done their damnedest to spread right leaning media about Obama for 8 years and as far as I remember he didn't openly question their right to do so.

    For what it's worth, I find both networks to be unintelligent and abusive to the population's well being.
     
    Weezy likes this.
  15. Savory Griddles

    Savory Griddles Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2014
    Messages:
    4,499
    Likes Received:
    7,529
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Offline
    1. Actually, rules change at companies all the time. We have a policies and procedures manual that we need to sign and read every year. We actually had a dress code change in my tenure here. When I started here, people could wear jeans. Some people started to push the envelope (and by people I mean one person) and jeans got banned for everyone. I do believe the standing for the flag thing can fall under the "Conduct detrimental to the league" as ratings are noticeably down. Is it the only factor causing ratings to go down? No. It may not be having much effect at all. But the NFL has shrinking numbers and people complaining about it so they would be justified in changing the rule. If the NFL or an owner decided to force his players to stand, the unions would have a tough fight on their hands.

    2. This is why #2 is difficult to answer. It was very abstract to begin with. Displaying patriotism is not, to the best of my knowledge covered in the race, creed, religion, sexual orientation, etc, etc. And once again, no one is asking them to be patriotic and paint their faces red, white, and blue. They are being asked to not do something that people feel is disrespectful. This is why it's abstract. Asking someone to do something that they don't want to do happens all the time at work. At what point does it cross the line into an HR issue? But in your response, you bring up "law" again. Maybe there's confusion when I used the word enforce. If a company asks that you stand, it's a company policy. It's not a law. They can't MAKE you stand. But they are also under zero obligation to continue to employ you. And also, if Dez Bryant decided to sit for the anthem, his contract would protect him and he'd still get his guaranteed money after Jerry cut him. I don't see how you think a company can't make something like standing for the national anthem required to retain employment. They can make something as trivial as no jeans at work enforceable, but not standing for a song? I'm not sure if were getting confused over semantics. I'm not saying a company can have you arrested. I'm saying they don't have to employ you.
     
    puffyusaf#2 likes this.
  16. sirronstuff

    sirronstuff LB Facebook Editor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2014
    Messages:
    10,089
    Likes Received:
    21,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Kenya
    Offline
    I'd like to see all the Cowboys kneel just to see what Jerry would do.

    I'd like to see news outlets penalized for publishing false or staged news of any kind.

    I'd like to see corruption of all types on all sides exposed and see the guilty parties do time or pay the appropriate price.

    I'd like to see a minimum balance of a few million dollars in my petty cash bank account tomorrow just because.
     
  17. lakerfan2

    lakerfan2 - Lakers Starter -

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2014
    Messages:
    2,968
    Likes Received:
    4,026
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Simi Valley
    Offline
    Forced patriotism and regulated media?

    Kim Jong Trump?
     
    Barnstable, John3:16 and Weezy like this.
  18. revgen

    revgen - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2014
    Messages:
    1,104
    Likes Received:
    2,232
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Online
    The mainstream media isn't really covering this too much, but Trump probably signed his most important executive order of his presidential tenure today.

    The executive order allows individuals to buy insurance across state lines and allows small businesses to pool their resources into group associations, which can negotiate with insurance companies for lower rates. The regulations will also make it easier for employers to give employees cash to buy insurance elsewhere if they aren't satisfied with the insurance they receive from the employer.

    The executive order stops short of allowing individuals to join groups like AARP or other non-employment associations to negotiate lower rates.

    Once these new regulations go into effect, individuals who cannot acquire or afford Obamacare insurance plans will have a greater diversity of options available to them.
     
    Last edited: Oct 12, 2017 at 10:17 PM
    sirronstuff, therealdeal and John3:16 like this.
  19. puffyusaf#2

    puffyusaf#2 - Lakers 6th Man -

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2014
    Messages:
    1,595
    Likes Received:
    1,005
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Occupation:
    Author of "Just a Thought"
    Location:
    GNW Doing things
    Offline
    Good points.

    1a. The key to the first point is actually my point. Companies change rules but you have to read the policy. Policy changes happen. However, if it is under contract then that has to amended and signed. As they say in court, no agreement other than a new written agreement can alter a written agreement. Add to that the NFLPA is a union and it is nearly impossible to simply force a new policy that isn't agreed upon.

    1b. You make a good point I wondered myself if the NFL would use that line to justify forcing them to stand. Then I thought about what could happen if they did. First, the league would have to prove that ratings took a significant hit directly from the kneeling. That is hard to do considering the ratings were already going down. Second, If the league simply said "all players will be out and standing for the National Anthem" then the NFLPA could file a grievance and possible legal action. Third, and my personal opinion, if the league was smart they would say that players can choose to not participate in the singing the National anthem by staying in the Locker room until it is concluded. Those choosing to come out need to stand for the anthem. NFLPA would have to agree of course. Again, if the league tries to force it I think they will have major issues in the long run because they don't have that power, again, in my opinion.

    2. The issue is what someone "feels" has little to do with the law. That is where people are missing the big point. Our personal opinions are not to be taken into consideration when it comes to enforcing something that isn't enforceable at this time. If they make the players do it then they have to ensure ALL employees do it. That is the fine line that is being walked right now. For the record, a company can not fire you for not doing something that is not mandatory or signed and agreed upon under the persons employment contract. There are some grey areas of course where , like you said, things like "detriment to the company" or something like that but that is hard to prove and even harder to fire someone over. They have to have more reasons to let you go.

    2b. jeans fall under dress code. A company can make anything possible providing that it is within their legal right to do so. Again, I refer back to Hobby Lobby being sued because of the Birth Control issue. The owners could not force their religious beliefs on their employees. The NFL is a company. The players are under contract. Those contracts stipulate what is acceptable and unacceptable. You cannot amend a contract without negotiation. plain and simple. That is my point. Now, if the players got a piece of the money that was paid to the NFL to put them out there for patriotic display then that would be them agreeing to having to be out there. I would personally be on the side of the NFL then. That isn't the case for what I understand. Last point yes a player can be cut or waived but he is getting his money. Then that player can go play somewhere else and get paid again. He isn't taking a loss for that but the team will be.

    In the end, I am not saying that I agree or disagree with the players just that we cannot hold them to a standard that every other American isn't being held to. A Muslim business owner can't require all his people sit kneeling while those who follow the faith do their prayers 5 times a day. How could we force someone to stand for the National Anthem? I get what you are saying and and am not disagreeing that the possibilities are there for sure. We shall see how it plays out.
     
  20. Barnstable

    Barnstable Supreme Fuzzler of Lakersball.com Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2014
    Messages:
    4,886
    Likes Received:
    7,632
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Connecticut
    Offline
    I don't agree with all his rhetoric in this video, but the over all theme I agree. This change will ruin the ACA and they know it, reverting to how things were before.

     

Share This Page