Send His Flatulence to jail

[whichphilosophy]

However I doubt if any action in the courts could fly since this is about politics introduced into sports.

Politics are introduced into sports the instant they start playing the anthem and expect/demand that the players (and audience) behave in a certain way because of it. The real question is, why the fuck is the anthem played in the first place? What does it have to do with playing football?

While this is a tradition, introducing particular ideology to distract the National Identity is a different issue. At the same time, doing away with the whole ceremony would be one solution.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Article lays out the case nicely, but...

So, the next step is to wait for Jeff Session's Department of Justice to file charges against Donald Trump.

I won't hold my breath

The article does not really make a case.

It actually does make an excellent case. Your lack of understanding of U.S. law and politics is what makes it difficult for you to follow.

It is the "politics" part that will make the case a non-starter, in my opinion.

It would be whether a case that Partisan politics was introduced into this issue. I don't see that the meaning and intent of US Law suggests that an objection of using a paid for sport for political statements can be interpreted as partisan.

 

[blastula]

Wouldn't be the first time a law has been broken by Trump and nothing done about it.

Department of Justice & Jared Kushner -- Anti-Nepotism Law Does Not Apply to White House Office | National Review

 

[Elixir]

If we had an actual representative government there would be no quibbling about what is or is not impeachable, subject to the 25th amendment or any of that. They would just throw the orange fucktard in jail - for sedition if nothing else.
But we don't have a representative government, except insofar as it is representative of President Putin's interests.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't watch sports much but I tend to think lots of sporting events don't need to begin with the national anthem. That said, I don't see kneeling rather than standing as disrespectful in the least. True disrespect is what New York's Finest police department did to Mayor Bill de Blasio by turning their backs to him while delivering a eulogy for two cops back in 2014. The police union claimed their blood was on his hands because he wasn't supportive enough after the death of Eric Garner and the end of stop and frisk. It's about the same issue. But taking the knee is anything but disrespectful. Kneeling is a sign of allegiance and fidelity to a cause. And displayed during the national anthem it's a demonstration of one's right to express one's opinions publicly in a free society. Nothing dishonorable about it. But the liberal press has fallen for Trump's charade once again and turned it into a question of one's right to disrespect the flag. He's hijacked the issue as more red meat for his wingnuts to stoke their love of macho in your face patriotism.

 

[whichphilosophy]

I don't watch sports much but I tend to think lots of sporting events don't need to begin with the national anthem. That said, I don't see kneeling rather than standing as disrespectful in the least. True disrespect is what New York's Finest police department did to Mayor Bill de Blasio by turning their backs to him while delivering a eulogy for two cops back in 2014. The police union claimed their blood was on his hands because he wasn't supportive enough after the death of Eric Garner and the end of stop and frisk. It's about the same issue. But taking the knee is anything but disrespectful. Kneeling is a sign of allegiance and fidelity to a cause. And displayed during the national anthem it's a demonstration of one's right to express one's opinions publicly in a free society. Nothing dishonorable about it. But the liberal press has fallen for Trump's charade once again and turned it into a question of one's right to disrespect the flag. He's hijacked the issue as more red meat for his wingnuts to stoke their love of macho in your face patriotism.

Sportsmen paid by their customers to play the ball but in addition using this as an opportunity to raise political agenda is the issue. It's not just Trump but millions who raised objection to this. Perhaps it's better to remove the Anthem altogether, but many US citizens would object.

 

[Treedbear]

I don't watch sports much but I tend to think lots of sporting events don't need to begin with the national anthem. That said, I don't see kneeling rather than standing as disrespectful in the least. True disrespect is what New York's Finest police department did to Mayor Bill de Blasio by turning their backs to him while delivering a eulogy for two cops back in 2014. The police union claimed their blood was on his hands because he wasn't supportive enough after the death of Eric Garner and the end of stop and frisk. It's about the same issue. But taking the knee is anything but disrespectful. Kneeling is a sign of allegiance and fidelity to a cause. And displayed during the national anthem it's a demonstration of one's right to express one's opinions publicly in a free society. Nothing dishonorable about it. But the liberal press has fallen for Trump's charade once again and turned it into a question of one's right to disrespect the flag. He's hijacked the issue as more red meat for his wingnuts to stoke their love of macho in your face patriotism.

Sportsmen paid by their customers to play the ball but in addition using this as an opportunity to raise political agenda is the issue. It's not just Trump but millions who raised objection to this. Perhaps it's better to remove the Anthem altogether, but many US citizens would object.

Making the national anthem the centerpiece of the game makes it a political venue:

of or relating to government, a government, or the conduct of government

 

[Malintent]

I don't watch sports much but I tend to think lots of sporting events don't need to begin with the national anthem. That said, I don't see kneeling rather than standing as disrespectful in the least. True disrespect is what New York's Finest police department did to Mayor Bill de Blasio by turning their backs to him while delivering a eulogy for two cops back in 2014. The police union claimed their blood was on his hands because he wasn't supportive enough after the death of Eric Garner and the end of stop and frisk. It's about the same issue. But taking the knee is anything but disrespectful. Kneeling is a sign of allegiance and fidelity to a cause. And displayed during the national anthem it's a demonstration of one's right to express one's opinions publicly in a free society. Nothing dishonorable about it. But the liberal press has fallen for Trump's charade once again and turned it into a question of one's right to disrespect the flag. He's hijacked the issue as more red meat for his wingnuts to stoke their love of macho in your face patriotism.

Sportsmen paid by their customers to play the ball but in addition using this as an opportunity to raise political agenda is the issue. It's not just Trump but millions who raised objection to this. Perhaps it's better to remove the Anthem altogether, but many US citizens would object.

Some idiots fell for Trumps divisive strategy... but you said "millions". Do you have a legitimate source for that?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sportsmen paid by their customers to play the ball but in addition using this as an opportunity to raise political agenda is the issue. It's not just Trump but millions who raised objection to this. Perhaps it's better to remove the Anthem altogether, but many US citizens would object.

Some idiots fell for Trumps divisive strategy... but you said "millions". Do you have a legitimate source for that?

CNN poll: Americans split on anthem protests

24% say they plan to boycott NFL games, broadcasts or products due to protests.

The public is also closely divided over whether professional sports leagues should require their players to stand during the National Anthem, as Trump has called for -- 49% say yes, 47% no.

So, clearly millions of people are on Trump's side. As you said, they may be idiots, but that would make about half of America idiots.

 

[Malintent]

Some idiots fell for Trumps divisive strategy... but you said "millions". Do you have a legitimate source for that?

CNN poll: Americans split on anthem protests

24% say they plan to boycott NFL games, broadcasts or products due to protests.

The public is also closely divided over whether professional sports leagues should require their players to stand during the National Anthem, as Trump has called for -- 49% say yes, 47% no.

So, clearly millions of people are on Trump's side. As you said, they may be idiots, but that would make about half of America idiots.

<Sigh> This is exactly what I am talking about... people are irresponsible with information. It took me two seconds to find:

The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted
from September 26 – September 28 2017 among a sample of 1,037 respondents. The landline total respondents were
424 and there were 613 of cell phone respondents. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 at the 95%
confidence level. The design effect is 1.29. More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting www.ssrs.com.

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CNN poll: Americans split on anthem protests

24% say they plan to boycott NFL games, broadcasts or products due to protests.

The public is also closely divided over whether professional sports leagues should require their players to stand during the National Anthem, as Trump has called for -- 49% say yes, 47% no.

So, clearly millions of people are on Trump's side. As you said, they may be idiots, but that would make about half of America idiots.

<Sigh> This is exactly what I am talking about... people are irresponsible with information. It took me two seconds to find:

The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted
from September 26 – September 28 2017 among a sample of 1,037 respondents. The landline total respondents were
424 and there were 613 of cell phone respondents. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 at the 95%
confidence level. The design effect is 1.29. More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting www.ssrs.com.

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

You understand how statistical sampling works, right? You just chewed out Kilgore Trout for understanding how surveys work.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Wouldn't be the first time a law has been broken by Trump and nothing done about it.

Department of Justice & Jared Kushner -- Anti-Nepotism Law Does Not Apply to White House Office | National Review

The quoted article states that per Haddon Vs Walters 1995, the White House is exempt. It is pretty much impossible to convict someone when they do not break the law, whether that law is considered right or not.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

I'm not going to know about focusing on exact terms like "raising objection." I'll leave that to whichphilosophy.

As far as being on Trump's side of the issue, it's pretty obvious that there is going to be millions of white, right-wing Christians that agree with him.
You are the one who should provide a source of how you know that less that one percent of voters agree with Trump.

 

[Malintent]

CNN poll: Americans split on anthem protests

24% say they plan to boycott NFL games, broadcasts or products due to protests.

The public is also closely divided over whether professional sports leagues should require their players to stand during the National Anthem, as Trump has called for -- 49% say yes, 47% no.

So, clearly millions of people are on Trump's side. As you said, they may be idiots, but that would make about half of America idiots.

<Sigh> This is exactly what I am talking about... people are irresponsible with information. It took me two seconds to find:

The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted
from September 26 – September 28 2017 among a sample of 1,037 respondents. The landline total respondents were
424 and there were 613 of cell phone respondents. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 at the 95%
confidence level. The design effect is 1.29. More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting www.ssrs.com.

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

You understand how statistical sampling works, right? You just chewed out Kilgore Trout for understanding how surveys work.

You missed the point. BESIDES the statistical insignificance of the tiny number of people polled, the interpretation of the survey response that they "are on Trump's side" is more than just a reach.

There are 323 Million people in the US. They sampled 0.0003% of the population. What conclusion can one draw from that, statistically speaking? What percentage of total sample is needed for significance?

There are a little less than 100,000 people living in Flint Michigan. If I sample 0.0003% of the population asking, "is the water safe to drink there", and ALL 30 people say yes, then you will feel like their water is 100% safe to drink, right? Or, at least 100% of the residents think it is safe to drink, at least.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CNN poll: Americans split on anthem protests

24% say they plan to boycott NFL games, broadcasts or products due to protests.

The public is also closely divided over whether professional sports leagues should require their players to stand during the National Anthem, as Trump has called for -- 49% say yes, 47% no.

So, clearly millions of people are on Trump's side. As you said, they may be idiots, but that would make about half of America idiots.

<Sigh> This is exactly what I am talking about... people are irresponsible with information. It took me two seconds to find:

The study was conducted for CNN via telephone by SSRS, an independent research company. Interviews were conducted
from September 26 – September 28 2017 among a sample of 1,037 respondents. The landline total respondents were
424 and there were 613 of cell phone respondents. The margin of error for total respondents is +/-3.5 at the 95%
confidence level. The design effect is 1.29. More information about SSRS can be obtained by visiting www.ssrs.com.

Less than 250 individuals responded (NOT "raised objection" - responded) how you claim... not KABILLIONS AND GILLIONS!!!one!11! rose up in defiance of the NFL.

But, you said "clearly" millions of people are on trumps side... actually you have accounted for 250 (giving you 1.5 for free)... just 999,750.00 to go until your point is made.

You understand how statistical sampling works, right? You just chewed out Kilgore Trout for understanding how surveys work.

You missed the point. BESIDES the statistical insignificance of the tiny number of people polled...

Once again... statistical sampling... it's kind of like the round earth regarding being standard and accepted.

...the interpretation of the survey response that they "are on Trump's side" is more than just a reach.

There are 323 Million people in the US. They sampled 0.0003% of the population. What conclusion can one draw from that, statistically speaking? What percentage of total sample is needed for significance?

Well, according to the +- 3.5% at the 95% confidence level... so decently accurate.

There are a little less than 100,000 people living in Flint Michigan. If I sample 0.0003% of the population asking, "is the water safe to drink there", and ALL 30 people say yes, then you will feel like their water is 100% safe to drink, right? Or, at least 100% of the residents think it is safe to drink, at least.

Sampling 30 people would lead to an enormous margin of error.

 

[Malintent]

Sampling 30 people would lead to an enormous margin of error.

.. which is precisely what this survey did... sampled 0.0003% of the scope... 1,000 cannot accurately represent 300 million any better than 30 can represent 100,000.

BUT AGAIN.. not so much a rally against surveys in general.. but the utility of the supposed information it provides. Nothing about this survey implies that 25% of the country supports Donald Trumps actions around the NFL, yet that is how the poster presented it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sampling 30 people would lead to an enormous margin of error.

.. which is precisely what this survey did... sampled 0.0003% of the scope... 1,000 cannot accurately represent 300 million any better than 30 can represent 100,000.

*sigh*

Margin 'o Error

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sampling 30 people would lead to an enormous margin of error.

.. which is precisely what this survey did... sampled 0.0003% of the scope... 1,000 cannot accurately represent 300 million any better than 30 can represent 100,000.

BUT AGAIN.. not so much a rally against surveys in general.. but the utility of the supposed information it provides. Nothing about this survey implies that 25% of the country supports Donald Trumps actions around the NFL, yet that is how the poster presented it.

Since you say we can't use these polls, then tell me your evidence that less than one percent of America agrees with Trump.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Sampling 30 people would lead to an enormous margin of error.

.. which is precisely what this survey did... sampled 0.0003% of the scope... 1,000 cannot accurately represent 300 million any better than 30 can represent 100,000.

BUT AGAIN.. not so much a rally against surveys in general.. but the utility of the supposed information it provides. Nothing about this survey implies that 25% of the country supports Donald Trumps actions around the NFL, yet that is how the poster presented it.

Learn some statistics.

The % of the population sampled is basically irrelevant. When looking at whole populations what counts is the size of your sample. 1000 out of a million or 1000 out of a billion, it doesn't matter, the difference in accuracy is tiny.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Sportsmen paid by their customers to play the ball but in addition using this as an opportunity to raise political agenda is the issue. It's not just Trump but millions who raised objection to this. Perhaps it's better to remove the Anthem altogether, but many US citizens would object.

Some idiots fell for Trumps divisive strategy... but you said "millions". Do you have a legitimate source for that?

I would have raised the same issue whether it's Trump or Clinton. They are paid by the public to play the ball not make party political statements which they can do in their own time.