Trump wants one year jail sentence for flag burning

[Madison320]

This seems pretty bad to me. Isn't this a whole new class of laws? Do we have any existing laws that makes generic criticism of the government illegal? I would think the next logical step would be to make it illegal to criticize the president.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4792101-donald-trump-urges-jail-sentence-burning-flags-protests/

 

[WarriorLiberty]

Does Trump wants to lose?

 

[jmdrake]

This seems pretty bad to me. Isn't this a whole new class of laws? Do we have any existing laws that makes generic criticism of the government illegal? I would think the next logical step would be to make it illegal to criticize the president.


https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4792101-donald-trump-urges-jail-sentence-burning-flags-protests/

Hmmm....interesting. From the story there are several laws the protestors could be prosecuted under without having a specific flag burning law:

Protesters took down an American flag and replaced it with a Palestinian flag and at one point burned the U.S. flag before someone ran into the crowd and snatched it away.​

Theft of federal property, disorderly conduct, and violation of the federal riot statute. And that would be true if these were right wing protests who stole a Palestinian flag and set it on fire in the middle of the street. But if somone buys a flag with his own money and sets it on fire on his own property, as long as he isn't violating and burning ordinance, that should be legal.

 

[jmdrake]

Does Trump wants to lose?

I keep wondering that over and over.

 

[unknown]

This will resonate with a certain % of people.

As far as the protestors, some came off as agent provacateurs.

 

[Valli6]

Hmmm....interesting. From the story there are several laws the protestors could be prosecuted under without having a specific flag burning law:

Protesters took down an American flag and replaced it with a Palestinian flag and at one point burned the U.S. flag before someone ran into the crowd and snatched it away.​

Theft of federal property, disorderly conduct, and violation of the federal riot statute. And that would be true if these were right wing protests who stole a Palestinian flag and set it on fire in the middle of the street. But if somone buys a flag with his own money and sets it on fire on his own property, as long as he isn't violating and burning ordinance, that should be legal.

Exactly! Why aren't they arrested for damaging and defacing public property? This is so obviously what should be happening, I find it mind-boggling that nobody even brings it up!

Trump is being a chump with this stupid idea about arresting flag-burners. I seem to recall him suggesting this during his first term, too. Apparently he's still taking advice from morons.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Trump is not a libertarian. Imagine that.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Trump is being a chump with this stupid idea about arresting flag-burners. I seem to recall him suggesting this during his first term, too. Apparently he's still taking advice from morons.

I disagree.

Trump knows perfectly well that:
(1) he isn't going to be able to do it (Presidents don't set prison terms for federal crimes - Congress does), and
(2) if he (or Congress) tried, the courts would slap him down, toot sweet.

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

 

[Valli6]

This is insulting to everyone who respects our constitution.

I disagree.

Trump knows knows perfectly well that:
(1) he isn't going to be able to do it (Presidents don't set prison terms for federal crimes - Congress does), and
(2) if he (or Congress) tried, the courts would slap him down, toot sweet.

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

Well, miseducating the stupids with this "red meat", and labeling constitutionalists "stupid people", is bad all around. He should be trying to help those clueless republicans that don't know better, rather than encouraging everyone to be stupider.

I guess your point is that there are so many "stupids" out there, this can earn him a lot of votes, but to encourage such ignorance stikes me as sinful. Also, it's insulting to everyone who supports adhering to our constitution.

 

[WarriorLiberty]

This will resonate with a certain % of people.

As far as the protestors, some came off as agent provacateurs.

Well i saw two images of two likely provacateurs that were responble for the burning of the flag while they were at it.

They were caught smiling and on camera while pretending to be pro palestine..

 

[oyarde]

I got my Sam Cooke on now, Guess wat song

 

[Occam's Banana]

Well, miseducating the stupids with this "red meat", and labeling constitutionalists "stupid people", is bad all around. He should be trying to help those clueless republicans that don't know better, rather than encouraging everyone to be stupider.

I guess your point is that there are so many "stupids" out there, this can earn him a lot of votes, but to encourage such ignorance stikes me as sinful. Also, it's insulting to everyone who supports adhering to our constitution.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But "miseducating" supporters and constituents is pretty much par for course for almost every politician out there.

The "chumps" (left or right, progressive or conservative) eat that shit up. (If they didn't, politicians wouldn't keep feeding it to them.)

Trump is nothing special in this regard.

(Ain't democracy grand?)

 

[Occam's Banana]

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

And I would add that the part of his base that does know better are apt to just gloss it over and shrug it off, because they know it won't go anywhere.

 

[Anti Globalist]

Does Trump wants to lose?

Maybe. Perhaps the idea that he’s a Democratic operative whose goal is to wreck the GOP so bad they won’t win elections anymore might not be far fetched after all.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I disagree.

Trump knows knows perfectly well that:
(1) he isn't going to be able to do it (Presidents don't set prison terms for federal crimes - Congress does), and
(2) if he (or Congress) tried, the courts would slap him down, toot sweet.

He's just throwing red meat to the part of his base that doesn't know any better.

They are the "chumps" here, not him.

Exactly right.

This has already been adjudicated a hundred times, and the courts have routinely ruled that flag burning is 1st Amendment protected free speech.

Now, try burning a fagg flag and see what happens to you.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Exactly right.

This has already been adjudicated a hundred times, and the courts have routinely ruled that flag burning is 1st Amendment protected free speech.

Now, try burning a fagg flag and see what happens to you.

What of it, comrade? Don't you hate hate?

 

[Anti Federalist]

What of it, comrade? Don't you hate hate?

Of course comrade, I hate hate very much.

In fact, is it not time for the daily "Two Minute Hate" session?

 

[Occam's Banana]

Of course comrade, I hate hate very much.

In fact, is it not time for the daily "Two Minute Hate" session?

It is never not time for a good "Two Minutes Hate".

How else to demonstrate our hatred of hatred?

We merely require subjects upon whom to practice such virtue ...

 

[Sonny Tufts]

Right wing political correctness. The dumb SOB has obviously never read Texas v Johnson. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/491/397/#tab-opinion-1958037

 

[69360]

Meh, if that was a proposed federal law, I would not fight for or against a specific law FOR THAT ACT ONLY. It's not an important issue to me, but I could live with a ban on it.