Congrats America

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

3 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So the NFL players get freedom of speech, but not the President?  

What is the compulsion  with you to quote every single post I make ?
I am taking the higher road. This is getting a bit too childish for me.

[Dashinka 23,243]

1 minute ago, Ebunoluwa said:

What is the compulsion  with you to quote every single post I make ?
I am taking the higher road. This is getting a bit too childish for me.

You certainly are under no obligation to reply. 

[bcking 3,157]

38 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

How does this apply?  What did Trump threaten to withhold to force the owners to fire those not standing?  What influence did he promise or threaten the owners with?

The act of publicly calling for NFL owners to fire their employees for particular reasons (that don't actually violate their contracts) could be considered to be attempting to "influence" or push them to make a decision using his power as President and the media attention he creates.

 

He is no longer just a public citizen giving an opinion. He is the President of the United States. It isn't appropriate for the President to specifically call out a particular set of employers to fire a particular set of employees. 

 

The White House has already said in the past that his tweets are official statements. So he has now made official statements as President of the United States calling on employers to fire their employees for reasons that aren't listed in their contracts. He is leveraging his power and publicity to influence their decision. He didn't work, but you can't deny that is what he tried to do.

Edited September 26, 2017 by bcking

[Dashinka 23,243]

24 minutes ago, bcking said:

The act of publicly calling for NFL owners to fire their employees for particular reasons (that don't actually violate their contracts) could be considered to be attempting to "influence" or push them to make a decision using his power as President and the media attention he creates.

 

He is no longer just a public citizen giving an opinion. He is the President of the United States. It isn't appropriate for the President to specifically call out a particular set of employers to fire a particular set of employees. 

 

The White House has already said in the past that his tweets are official statements. So he has now made official statements as President of the United States calling on employers to fire their employees for reasons that aren't listed in their contracts. He is leveraging his power and publicity to influence their decision. He didn't work, but you can't deny that is what he tried to do.

I guess what I am saying is doesn't 18 USC 227 require an overt act, or a quid pro quo?  Can opinions expressed by government agents such as Reps, Senators, etc. and even the President be considered in and of itself influence?  I am asking as I am not a lawyer, but this section is contained in Chapter 11 of 18 USC titled Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest.

[bcking 3,157]

1 minute ago, Bill & Katya said:

I guess what I am saying is doesn't 18 USC 227 require an overt act, or a quid pro quo?  Can opinions expressed by government agents such as Reps, Senators, etc. and even the President be considered in and of itself influence?  I am asking as I am not a lawyer, but this section is contained in Chapter 11 of 18 USC titled Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest.

I honestly don't know either. I know we have some lawyers who hang out on here occassionally. 

 

My opinion would be that a public official of substantial power (President being the pinnacle of that) should refrain from giving opinion on whether a private entity should terminate contracts on employees, for any reason. 

 

Just giving his opinion, in my mind, is influencing their decision making because his opinion is going to be widely disseminated (as we have already seen). That wide spread dissemination, coupled with his suggestion that their actions will reduce their ratings/viewerships, is an attempt to influence their decisions. I don't think a President should call for a boycott, or call for a reduction in viewership over something he happens to not like. He can't spread his personal opinions around like that anymore now that he is President (in my view).

 

From reading in other places it seems like the bigger issue with whether he violated this law is whether you consider what he said/did an "official act". His twitter account has been confirmed to be "official statements", but official statements aren't necessarily acts. So he likely gets away with it because he isn't acting, he is just making statements to attempt to influence a private entity.

 

Either way I firmly believe a President should not get in between an employer and an employee and attempt to influence a employer's decision regarding termination. That should be universally agreed upon. It just seems common sense.

 

 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

So this is all about racism?  I don't remember Trump saying anything about racism.

Trump breathing=racist. Its the narrative that the alt left keeps alive. Their only hopes of maintaining  any power.

I am old enough to remember when Trump was not racist 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, Nature Boy Flair said:

Trump breathing=racist. Its the narrative that the alt left keeps alive. Their only hopes of maintaining  any power.

I am old enough to remember when Trump was not racist 

 

 

What does the photo have to do with the content of your post? You need more context to the photograph.

 

You do realise somebody can be a racist AND stand next to a black person in a photograph, right? You can't just provide a picture of him standing next to black people as proof he isn't a racist. 

 

I really really hate bananas. If you found a photograph of me standing next to a banana that doesnt' change the fact that I hate them. 

 

This also ignores the fact that he may have changed opinions over the years so even if he wasn't a racist in the past doesn't mean he isn't one now. Beliefs aren't permanent. They can go either way (alternatively he could have been racist back then but not anymore...though the evidence I think would suggest otherwise).

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

2 minutes ago, bcking said:

What does the photo have to do with the content of your post? You need more context to the photograph.

 

You do realise somebody can be a racist AND stand next to a black person in a photograph, right? You can't just provide a picture of him standing next to black people as proof he isn't a racist. 

 

I really really hate bananas. If you found a photograph of me standing next to a banana that doesnt' change the fact that I hate them. 

 

This also ignores the fact that he may have changed opinions over the years so even if he wasn't a racist in the past doesn't mean he isn't one now. Beliefs aren't permanent. They can go either way (alternatively he could have been racist back then but not anymore...though the evidence I think would suggest otherwise).

OMG you said banana in a post with a picture of black people. That kind of racism is uncalled for.  

[Dashinka 23,243]

29 minutes ago, bcking said:

I honestly don't know either. I know we have some lawyers who hang out on here occassionally. 

 

My opinion would be that a public official of substantial power (President being the pinnacle of that) should refrain from giving opinion on whether a private entity should terminate contracts on employees, for any reason. 

 

Just giving his opinion, in my mind, is influencing their decision making because his opinion is going to be widely disseminated (as we have already seen). That wide spread dissemination, coupled with his suggestion that their actions will reduce their ratings/viewerships, is an attempt to influence their decisions. I don't think a President should call for a boycott, or call for a reduction in viewership over something he happens to not like. He can't spread his personal opinions around like that anymore now that he is President (in my view).

 

From reading in other places it seems like the bigger issue with whether he violated this law is whether you consider what he said/did an "official act". His twitter account has been confirmed to be "official statements", but official statements aren't necessarily acts. So he likely gets away with it because he isn't acting, he is just making statements to attempt to influence a private entity.

 

Either way I firmly believe a President should not get in between an employer and an employee and attempt to influence a employer's decision regarding termination. That should be universally agreed upon. It just seems common sense.

 

 

Fair enough.  I wonder where the folks claiming Trump broke the law under 18USC227 when then Senator Obama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry?  Did that influence any private entities in their hiring or employment decisions?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

37 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Trump breathing=racist. Its the narrative that the alt left keeps alive. Their only hopes of maintaining  any power.

I am old enough to remember when Trump was not racist 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

26 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Fair enough.  I wonder where the folks claiming Trump broke the law under 18USC227 when then Senator Obama said he was going to bankrupt the coal industry?  Did that influence any private entities in their hiring or employment decisions?

Again I'm no lawyer.

 

1. I think we would all agree the influence a President has is far greater than a Senator

 

2. I'm not familiar with the scenario you bring up, but from what you are saying I see a difference between a politician saying they want to work to end an industry, and one saying they want members of that industry to fire a select group of employees. 

 

Obama wasn't calling on coal industry CEO's to fire workers who complained about poor working conditions. Trump wasn't tweeting that he was going to personally end the NFL as a whole. Both may be wrong, but they are very different.

 

In the end Trump didn't break any laws, I just brought it up because I thought it was at least partially relevant. I'll just add this event to the long list of situations where I have disagreed with the actions the current President has taken. I think a President has no place commenting on individual employer/employee relationships, particularly speaking about terminating certain employees for specific actions (that aren't already covered by their contract). It is just inappropriate and not his job.

 

As I said at the very beginning, I'm sure Trump is aware of most of this. It created a fine distraction from his actual job, which he isn't having a great time with so far. Wall unbuilt/unfunded (and no Mexican aid!), healthcare reform failure x3 with a majority. Poor guy.

[Dashinka 23,243]

17 minutes ago, bcking said:

Again I'm no lawyer.

 

1. I think we would all agree the influence a President has is far greater than a Senator

 

2. I'm not familiar with the scenario you bring up, but from what you are saying I see a difference between a politician saying they want to work to end an industry, and one saying they want members of that industry to fire a select group of employees. 

 

Obama wasn't calling on coal industry CEO's to fire workers who complained about poor working conditions. Trump wasn't tweeting that he was going to personally end the NFL as a whole. Both may be wrong, but they are very different.

 

In the end Trump didn't break any laws, I just brought it up because I thought it was at least partially relevant. I'll just add this event to the long list of situations where I have disagreed with the actions the current President has taken. I think a President has no place commenting on individual employer/employee relationships, particularly speaking about terminating certain employees for specific actions (that aren't already covered by their contract). It is just inappropriate and not his job.

 

As I said at the very beginning, I'm sure Trump is aware of most of this. It created a fine distraction from his actual job, which he isn't having a great time with so far. Wall unbuilt/unfunded (and no Mexican aid!), healthcare reform failure x3 with a majority. Poor guy.

We can spin it anyway we want, but when assertions are made, comparisons are bound to happen.  The president may have more influence than a senator, but 18USC227 does not make that distinction therefore it could be applied to both.  In Obama's case you could say his words were much more influential and actually lead to either people not being hired, or being fired based on businesses planning for the future especially once he was actually elected.  I don't think anyone actually thought the league owners were going to fire anyone in Trump's case.  Regardless, it is a good discussion point.

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

As I stated, he was sued by the government for discriminatory rental practices.
 

[Ebunoluwa 6,136]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Trump breathing=racist. Its the narrative that the alt left keeps alive. Their only hopes of maintaining  any power.

I am old enough to remember when Trump was not racist 

 

 

 

 

And I am old enough to know the facts.