http://www.thewrap.com/republican-el...-donald-trump/
Printable View
Bought and paid for!
I read some quotes from him. I have to wonder how he ever got to be an Elector b/c he makes no sense in his statements. Saying Trump has gone after the First Amendment since winning? Huh? He's ripped on the media, but that's not a challenge to the First Amendment.
Guy seems pretty squirrely to me, and seems there are a few more of them in the group, but not enough to make a difference.
Does anyone think this person is just looking for attention and a possible pay day, or is he actually as stupid as he seems?
“Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments,” Suprun pointed out, saying the incoming president “has played fast and loose with the law for years.”
“The election of the next president is not yet a done deal. Electors of conscience can still do the right thing for the good of the country … I pray my fellow electors will do their job and join with me in discovering who that person should be,” he concluded.
"The days following the response to the Sept. 11 attacks “was also the last time I remember the nation united. I watch Mr. Trump fail to unite America and drive a wedge between us,” --Yeah, because the democrats are all about uniting the nation?? Their tactics have been classic divide and conquer.
“Finally, Mr. Trump does not understand that the Constitution expressly forbids a president to receive payments or gifts from foreign governments,” Suprun pointed out, saying the incoming president “has played fast and loose with the law for years.” As compared to say Hillary who sold access to our government to foreign governments.
Dan, that's the question. You'd think even looking for attention or money he would put forth a cohesive argument, some kind of cogent position. so I conclude he is that stupid, and probably is also looking for attention or money.
His reasons are borderline bizarre. If he'd said the same old line about being a misogynist, etc. I could see it.
Heck, maybe he's sincere, and is just that odd in his perspective. WHich makes me wonder how he was made an elector.
Actually, his comment did make sense. Trump tweeted (I wish he would lose the password to his twitter account - I can show him how, I'm good at it) that people who burn the American flag must face consequences, either losing their citizenship or a year in jail. Clearly he forgot about the pesky First Amendment.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Darrell I think it depends on whether a person deems the supreme court decision on flag burning is a correct interpretation of the first amendment or not.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Dan, clearly when he is attacking two U.S. Supreme Court decisions that uphold that as the correct interpretation of the First Amendment (by inference), he is going after the First Amendment. You simply can't contort his comments enough to dispute that, can you?Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
And for dang sure, the elector's comments make perfect sense in this regard.
If you will allow me, I "could" interpret it as attacking or disagreeing with the decisions of the high court rather than the amendment itself. Personally I do not think he is doing that. He is just shooting off his mouth, or in this case typing before pondering his typed words while expressing his thoughts of the moment.
I support everything the amendment says yet I disagree with the courts decisions on flag burning. In my opinion they have stretched the words free speech to encompass free actions. That does not make my opinion correct, but it is the one I have.
Fair enough, but a lot of people have called for an amendment to protect the flag, Hillary included.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
But that one I missed on. Still think he's kinda nutty.
Dan, his "just shooting off at the mouth," is something we both agree he's doing.
I don't agree that it's in any way something less than an attack on the First Amendment, however. Freedom of speech has, for decades, been interpreted as freedom of expression--not just with flag-burning, an action that almost all of us abhor, but with other actions as well.
One's speech, if to be interpreted literally, includes just sounds. Someone who expresses themselves through braille language would not be protected. Someone typing on an internet message board would not be protected, nor would newspapers or magazines, or posters, or banners. I think darn close to 100% of the populace--even Donald Trump--would concede that freedom of speech includes more than the dictionary definition, and would protect all of those methods of expression.
Speech is the expression of thoughts and feelings by articulate sound. That's the literal, textbook definition. I do not see any way the framers intended for that freedom of expression of thoughts and feelings to be limited to articulate sound. A non-invasive demonstration surely was intended to be included.
But to the point initially made--suggesting that somebody isn't making sense when they criticize Donald Trump as an attack on the First Amendment is just unsupportable. Whether you or I like it or not, the First Amendment includes freedom of expression of more than sounds. We're contorting and twisting way too hard trying to make a nice-nice fine distinction that it's not an attack on the First Amendment, but on our highest court's long-standing interpretation of the First Amendment. If you allow me to make that fine of distinction, I can take any position anywhere and separate it from the obvious.
JMO. I'm trying very hard not to make a partisan position here, and I think I do a fair job of stepping away from it. It does make it easier because I don't like any politician today lol.
It's not uncommon for a president, or one branch of the government to hold and opinion many disagree with. That is the purpose of checks and balances. Unless one uses action to bypass them, like executive orders, a presidents opinions are just opinions
CBBN, I almost posted that Hillary made the same exact attack on it. I remember her sponsoring it (or co-sponsoring it, IIRC) well. Like I said in the post above this one--I don't like any politican right now (at least the ones we chose from). They're all poor.Quote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
On the elector--yeah, he's nutty as a fruitcake. Don't let my one little quibble distract that. He's a loon.
I'm with you 100% on this buddy!Quote:
Originally Posted by dan_bgblue
Spoken like a true lawyer! :poke:Quote:
Originally Posted by Darrell KSR
Lol Dan. Got me.