Your Thoughts - League Agrees To Social Justice Plan (1 Viewer)

[Ilov80s]

So they are taking money from the Woman’s Breast Cancer month and Military donations to pay for this?  Am I reading this right?  

Possibly but any time money is donated to 1 worthwhile a cause it is at the expense of every other cause. Opportunity cost. 

 

[Ilov80s]

I haven't seen it anywhere, but are players contributing any money? Or do they just use their coin on more sick chains, cribs & 20 expensive cars.

Or is it from the owners? Or do they just their coin to buy a golf course, build a new factory in Mexico and buy off 20 politicians? 

 

[The Frankman]

Im not sure what players end goal of the protest was intended to be.  A perfectly just society would obviously be the best outcome, but its just not a realistic goal unless the protests were intended to continue ad nauseum.

I think the attention garnered in addition to 89 million dollars is a pretty successful outcome to a couple seasons worth of symbolic kneeling.

Hopefully its the impetus to actual change in the relationship between police and the people they are sworn to protect.

Money doesn't fix it though... 

Like if Police commissioners in a state decided to hold a caucus within many communities and started programs where officers and community members meet and interact (this is actually done in alot of places) so there is an exchange of ideals, or some kind of initiative to oversee community relations/examine police brutality/interactions... like THAT can be some sort of a success for what Kaepernick/other players were protesting at its core. You can't go "here's money" and it's fixed though.

 

[CaptainJT]

Money doesn't fix it though... 

Like if the Police commissioner in a state decided to hold a caucus within many communities and started programs where officers and community members meet and interact (this is actually done in alot of places) so there is an exchange of ideals, or some kind of initiative to oversee community relations/examine police brutality/interactions... like THAT'S a success for what Kaepernick/other players were protesting at its core. You can't go "here's money" and it's fixed though.  

When  Michael Bennett apologizes for lying about the LVPD, that will be a start.

 

[The Frankman]

When  Michael Bennett apologizes for lying about the LVPD, that will be a start.

I always wondered about this and I'll try not to go off-topic:

Let's say he did in fact lie. Why, in your mind, would that be a start? One has very little to do with the other. I mean what you are kinda saying is it's fair to ignore the issue of minorities being profiled and in some cases brutalized by police without just cause unless Michael Bennett apologizes for an incident where details are murky at best. I'd think they can be mutually exclusive myself.

 

[Da Guru]

Who's not talking?

Players/Goodell/Lurie all met in Philly for a couple days.   Met with Police representatives, justice department and others

It will provide jobs.  The fund will need a paid president and a VP, administrators and a board. Then they will need to decide where to dispurse the leftover funds so there might be some city lobbyists involved.   Komen, MADD, BLM, Goodwill all started out as a cause then turn into a business. The Komen Foundation gives only 20% of donated funds to research..yet their CEO makes 650,000 a year.  

 

[-OZ-]

I haven't seen it anywhere, but are players contributing any money? Or do they just use their coin on more sick chains, cribs & 20 expensive cars.

Lol

But thanks for reminding me why I haven't bought tickets or swag in years. They make money off my watching, ads, I guess but that's about it.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I have many issues with the way my country treats people here and abroad. The fact that we can criticize the country legally and in public is, in fact, one of the benefits of not living in a fascist state. I, and many others, fear that America may go down the path towards fascism, as many once-democratic societies have.

What does going down the path towards fascism look like? Well, it starts with asserting the sanctity of the flag, anthem, and national leaders, along with religious-style worship of those three. Then, criticism of the deified leaders is squelched and later made illegal. Dissidents are rounded up and arrested, and supporters are elevated and empowered. 

Playing the anthem alone isn't fascist, but it is nationalistic. It's a political act. Protesting nationalism is also a political act. If you'd like the football pre-game to not be politicized, you have to start with not politicizing it by playing the anthem and requiring the players to stand on the field and participate in the nationalistic display.

Suggesting that protestors of nationalism should be fired, arrested, or leave the country is fascist. I might ask you, if protest bothers you so much, "how can you possibly stand living in a country" where the very first amendment in the Bill of Rights asserts, "the right of the people peaceably to...petition the Government for a redress of grievances"?

You do understand the difference between private enterprise and government, I assume?  I know it sounds condescending but your post doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two.  That difference is critical in this whole anthem fiasco.  There is no government fiat.  Do you believe the Federal government is forcing NFL teams to play the anthem before games?

Massive differences between a voluntary and a government coerced act.  You seem to be under the impression it is the latter - at least your posts lend themselves that way.  This is not a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form.

 

[treat88]

Money doesn't fix it though... 

Like if Police commissioners in a state decided to hold a caucus within many communities and started programs where officers and community members meet and interact (this is actually done in alot of places) so there is an exchange of ideals, or some kind of initiative to oversee community relations/examine police brutality/interactions... like THAT can be some sort of a success for what Kaepernick/other players were protesting at its core. You can't go "here's money" and it's fixed though.

Of course not. Money can't change people's hearts. 

It doesn't hurt tho. 

Like I ask, what would be a more realistic end point to this type of protest be?  What do the players hope to accomplish if not garnering attention and actual concrete signs of support, i.e.money, for the cause. As noble in intent as the protests are they have to be attached to actual quantifiable behavioral results . This seems like nothing but a positive step in that direction. 

 

[Amused to Death]

You do understand the difference between private enterprise and government, I assume?  I know it sounds condescending but your post doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two.  That difference is critical in ths whole anthem fiasco.

I don't want to speak for CalBear, but there's irony in that statement.  Our president has no authority over private business nor is he allowed to interfere in its operation.  The issue escalated immensely when he tweeted about boycotting the NFL.

ETA: the private enterprise has chosen how to run its business.  You don't have to like it.

 

[Bronco Billy]

I don't want to speak for CalBear, but there's irony in that statement.  Our president has no authority over private business nor is he allowed to interfere in its operation.  The issue escalated immensely when he tweeted about boycotting the NFL.

Ummmmm, where exactly has the President exerted any authority whatsoever in this? Or is it your opinion that he is not allowed to express his opinion?

.

 

[Amused to Death]

Ummmmm, where exactly has the President exerted any authority whatsoever in this?

By promoting a boycott. 

 

[Bronco Billy]

By promoting a boycott. 

Really?  By what government action?  Executive order?  Signing a law?  What is the legal consequence for noncompliance?

Oh, wait, he tweeted something.  Do you consider that equivalent to the writ of law?

C’mon.  Display some common sense.  You have to know better, right?

.

 

[NeverEnough]

None of this garbage will change a thing.

Yup

 

[Amused to Death]

Really?  By what government action?  Executive order?  Signing a law?  What is the legal consequence for noncompliance?

Oh, wait, he tweeted something.  Do you consider that equivalent to the writ of law?

C’mon.  Display some common sense.  You have to know better, right?

.

OK, so you brought up private business vs. government and you're correct.  The private business in this case has allowed its employees the freedom to protest.  I'll leave it at that.

 

[CalBear]

You do understand the difference between private enterprise and government, I assume?  I know it sounds condescending but your post doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two.  That difference is critical in this whole anthem fiasco.  There is no government fiat.  Do you believe the Federal government is forcing NFL teams to play the anthem before games?

Massive differences between a voluntary and a government coerced act.  You seem to be under the impression it is the latter - at least your posts lend themselves that way.  This is not a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form.

I believe the President of the United States (who I assume you will agree is a government official with some influence over policy) has asserted that we should "respect" our flag and anthem, and that people who don't are "sons of #####es" who should be fired. 

That is very dangerous territory.

 

[CaptainJT]

Yup

If anything it will promote more of these actions.  If players think that they can be rewarded with $100 million dollars... then whats to ever stop this?

 

[Bossman]

Giving back to the community is always a good thing. NFL is so fat ... $12m a year is peanuts for them.

... but If the NFL wants to boost ratings once and for all ... they should lobby to legalize betting on NFL football.

Daily fantasy is a hit ... somehow that isn't considered gambling since it's considered "skill" based (at least in my state, MA).

Betting on who wins or loses the game vs. a point spread should be considered a "skill". Why can I wager on specific players but not a team?

What's the risk? This isn't the 1950's when your fighter might get paid to take a dive in the 6th round.

I can drop $100 on state lottery scratch tickets at any gas station or convenience store ... but I can't wager that same $100 on an NFL game?

Make it happen and the ratings would be at a record high.

 

[CalBear]

Giving back to the community is always a good thing. NFL is so fat ... $12m a year is peanuts for them.

... but If the NFL wants to boost ratings once and for all ... they should lobby to legalize betting on NFL football.

Daily fantasy is a hit ... somehow that isn't considered gambling since it's considered "skill" based (at least in my state, MA).

Betting on who wins or loses the game vs. a point spread should be considered a "skill". Why can I wager on specific players but not a team?

What's the risk? This isn't the 1950's when your fighter might get paid to take a dive in the 6th round.

I can drop $100 on state lottery scratch tickets at any gas station or convenience store ... but I can't wager that same $100 on an NFL game?

Make it happen and the ratings would be at a record high.

Vegas would never let it happen. And right now, Atlantic City even more so.

 

[Bossman]

Vegas would never let it happen. And right now, Atlantic City even more so.

How does Vegas or AC have any say on what happens in the other 48 states?

Do those cities somehow control gaming in other areas?

 

[Bronco Billy]

I believe the President of the United States (who I assume you will agree is a government official with some influence over policy) has asserted that we should "respect" our flag and anthem, and that people who don't are "sons of #####es" who should be fired. 

That is very dangerous territory.

I’ll ask you the same questions.  I can’t seem to get an answer yet.  By what legal means has the President established any action that carries any legal ramifications?  All I have seen is that he has expressed an opinion.  He IS allowed to express his opinion in this country, right?  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

 

[CalBear]

How does Vegas or AC have any say on what happens in the other 48 states?

Do those cities somehow control gaming in other areas?

Yes. Or rather, the billionaires (including Trump himself) who are invested in Vegas and Atlantic City being the places people go for gambling have long used their money and influence to stop the growth of gambling elsewhere.

 

[CalBear]

I’ll ask you the same questions.  I can’t seem to get an answer yet.  By what legal means has the President established any action that carries any legal ramifications?  All I have seen is that he has expressed an opinion.  He IS allowed to express his opinion in this country, right?  Perhaps you can enlighten me.

It is very dangerous for the President to be calling for boycotts, or for people to be fired, for taking entirely legal, peaceful, principled stands, whether or not his calls have the force of law. And it is highly irresponsible if he is in any way concerned about the free exercise of democracy.

 

[Bossman]

Yes. Or rather, the billionaires (including Trump himself) who are invested in Vegas and Atlantic City being the places people go for gambling have long used their money and influence to stop the growth of gambling elsewhere.

I'm not buying your theory. You are saying that Vegas and / or Trump halted casinos / gaming in other states?

My state has several casinos (MA). They're popping up all over the place. Vegas or Trump had no say in the matter.

I can play slot machines, video poker, video black jack. .... Still can't bet on football there though. 

Should I want to scratch the "bet on NFL itch", I would drive to Foxwoods / Connecticut. Vegas or AC isn't seeing that money either way. 

 

[CalBear]

I'm not buying your theory. You are saying that Vegas and / or Trump halted casinos / gaming in other states?

My state has several casinos (MA). They're popping up all over the place. Vegas or Trump had no say in the matter.

I can play slot machines, video poker, video black jack. .... Still can't bet on football there though. 

Should I want to scratch the "bet on NFL itch", I would drive to Foxwoods / Connecticut. Vegas or AC isn't seeing that money either way. 

The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) places limitations on "class III" (casino-style) gambling on tribal lands. Those restrictions are entirely the result of lobbying by Vegas and Atlantic City. Limitations on the types of games available, one of the concessions given to existing casino businesses to shield them from competition, are codified in state-tribal compacts which are required by the IGRA to start any new tribal casino.

Trump filed a federal lawsuit in 1993, and testified before Congress in an attempt to block Indian casinos. (He also paid out $250K to settle a lawsuit about a sham non-profit lobbying front he created to pump his views).

In any case, it should not be a surprise that powerful, entrenched business interests have influence on U.S. and state regulations.

 

[Bronco Billy]

It is very dangerous for the President to be calling for boycotts, or for people to be fired, for taking entirely legal, peaceful, principled stands, whether or not his calls have the force of law. And it is highly irresponsible if he is in any way concerned about the free exercise of democracy.

Where is the danger?  Where?  Has anyone had any of their rights removed or truncated?  Has Trump taken action under authority of the government against anyone?  Where has Trump denied anyone their rights?

Tell me, did you express the same concerns about the past President?  I’m guessing not...

 

[CalBear]

Where is the danger?  Where?  Has anyone had any of their rights removed or truncated?  Has Trump taken action under authority of the government against anyone?  Where has Trump denied anyone their rights?

My assertion: If you value democracy and freedom, and you are in a position of extreme power within that democracy, you should be careful in how you respond to those who disagree with you. Suggesting that they should be sanctioned because they are protesting is the path to fascism.

One of the first things that Goebbels did (in 1933) was organize a boycott of Jewish businesses, in response to a protest of discrimination against Jews in Nazi Germany. He didn't make it illegal (yet) for Jews to own businesses; he just suggested that they weren't real Germans, that they were the cause of Germany's problems, and that real Germans should ostracize them. The Brownshirts, a non-governmental paramilitary organization loyal to Goebbels, stood outside Jewish businesses to intimidate those who might patronize them.

None of that was illegal. But it was threatening to German democracy. If Goebbels valued democracy and freedom, he wouldn't have done it. 

 

[BassNBrew]

You right wing whackadoos sure do stick together. I got hand it to you.

@Joe 8ryant mods on holiday today?

 

[BassNBrew]

Lol. Should have the owners weren't going to toss any new coin into this and that the players can't get on the same page. 

 

[Bronco Billy]

My assertion: If you value democracy and freedom, and you are in a position of extreme power within that democracy, you should be careful in how you respond to those who disagree with you. Suggesting that they should be sanctioned because they are protesting is the path to fascism.

One of the first things that Goebbels did (in 1933) was organize a boycott of Jewish businesses, in response to a protest of discrimination against Jews in Nazi Germany. He didn't make it illegal (yet) for Jews to own businesses; he just suggested that they weren't real Germans, that they were the cause of Germany's problems, and that real Germans should ostracize them. The Brownshirts, a non-governmental paramilitary organization loyal to Goebbels, stood outside Jewish businesses to intimidate those who might patronize them.

None of that was illegal. But it was threatening to German democracy. If Goebbels valued democracy and freedom, he wouldn't have done it. 

And so we stroll into the Theater of the Absurd. Trump the Nazi

 

[CalBear]

And so we stroll into the Theater of the Absurd. Trump the Nazi

You don't have to go back to Nazi Germany to see this pattern. You can see it today in Russia and Turkey, among others. It's foolish to think it can't happen here.

Once again: It is irresponsible and anti-democratic for the President of the United States to suggest that people should be sanctioned for the mere act of peaceful protest. All who value democracy and freedom should be concerned.

 

[unckeyherb]

My assertion: If you value democracy and freedom, and you are in a position of extreme power within that democracy, you should be careful in how you respond to those who disagree with you. Suggesting that they should be sanctioned because they are protesting is the path to fascism.

One of the first things that Goebbels did (in 1933) was organize a boycott of Jewish businesses, in response to a protest of discrimination against Jews in Nazi Germany. He didn't make it illegal (yet) for Jews to own businesses; he just suggested that they weren't real Germans, that they were the cause of Germany's problems, and that real Germans should ostracize them. The Brownshirts, a non-governmental paramilitary organization loyal to Goebbels, stood outside Jewish businesses to intimidate those who might patronize them.

None of that was illegal. But it was threatening to German democracy. If Goebbels valued democracy and freedom, he wouldn't have done it. 

Jesus christ.  

 

[Bossman]

The 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) places limitations on "class III" (casino-style) gambling on tribal lands. Those restrictions are entirely the result of lobbying by Vegas and Atlantic City. Limitations on the types of games available, one of the concessions given to existing casino businesses to shield them from competition, are codified in state-tribal compacts which are required by the IGRA to start any new tribal casino.

Trump filed a federal lawsuit in 1993, and testified before Congress in an attempt to block Indian casinos. (He also paid out $250K to settle a lawsuit about a sham non-profit lobbying front he created to pump his views).

In any case, it should not be a surprise that powerful, entrenched business interests have influence on U.S. and state regulations.

So 25 years ago Trump attempted to block Indian casinos ... he obviously failed. Lots of them have happened around me.

I guess it comes down to whether the powerful, entrenched, of Vegas and AC can out-weigh the powerful, entrenched, of the NFL.  

Bottom line, legal NFL gambling would be a MASSIVE boost to their TV ratings and popularity ... regardless of protests during the national anthem.

I believe it can happen.

 

[Stealthycat]

so ya'll disagree when Trump steps in and says its disgraceful and disrespectful for athletes to kneel at the anthem and its a dangerous thing for Trump to do that

I imagine ya'll went crazy when Obama issued Executive Orders that restricted the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms didn't you? Or right before he left office, when Obama ended the wet foot dry foot Cuban refugee policy?

We're not talking about standing or kneeling during a game - we're talking about Executive Orders impacting Constitutional Rights as well as Executive Orders impacting human lives. 

So don't tell me Trump speaking out on dishonorable football players is a dangerous territory when the truth is, you've probably just been told it is by the liberal media you choose to believe and never batted an eye before at the dangerous grounds Obama treaded. 

When Trump signs an executive order on players standing - then you can say he's breached into places a POTUS shouldn't go -like Obama went. 

 

[SproutDaddy]

so ya'll disagree when Trump steps in and says its disgraceful and disrespectful for athletes to kneel at the anthem and its a dangerous thing for Trump to do that

I imagine ya'll went crazy when Obama issued Executive Orders that restricted the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms didn't you? Or right before he left office, when Obama ended the wet foot dry foot Cuban refugee policy?

We're not talking about standing or kneeling during a game - we're talking about Executive Orders impacting Constitutional Rights as well as Executive Orders impacting human lives. 

So don't tell me Trump speaking out on dishonorable football players is a dangerous territory when the truth is, you've probably just been told it is by the liberal media you choose to believe and never batted an eye before at the dangerous grounds Obama treaded. 

When Trump signs an executive order on players standing - then you can say he's breached into places a POTUS shouldn't go -like Obama went. 

Amazing the alternate reality I see people living in on a daily basis.

 

[Bronco Billy]

You don't have to go back to Nazi Germany to see this pattern. You can see it today in Russia and Turkey, among others. It's foolish to think it can't happen here.

Once again: It is irresponsible and anti-democratic for the President of the United States to suggest that people should be sanctioned for the mere act of peaceful protest. All who value democracy and freedom should be concerned.

My what a patriot you are.  And I’m certain we will find you caterwauling the same way when Obama went well beyond expressing an opinion and instead circumvented the Constitution and exceeded his Presidential authority with EOs or using the DOJ or the IRS as his personal attacks dogs - each of which he did numerous times.  Perhaps you can link a few of diatribes of your outrage then for us?

Until Trump actually exerts legal muscle and executes a mandate against this behavior, enforcable by the power of law and police authority, he is doing nothing more than expressing an opinion - something that you feel Americans have a right to do, right up until you disagree with the opinion or find the person expressing it detestable. Then you apparently feel that the opinions should be shut down and not be expressed. How truly patriotic of you.  Nothing facist in that kind of thinking.

If you truly believed the speil you put forth above, you’d be stoutly defending Trump’s ability to express an opinion, no matter how much you hated it.  But you really don’t believe in free speech do you, not when that speech is something you disagree with?  Then it becomes dangerous to the Republic and must be halted.

.

 

[-OZ-]

so ya'll disagree when Trump steps in and says its disgraceful and disrespectful for athletes to kneel at the anthem and its a dangerous thing for Trump to do that

I imagine ya'll went crazy when Obama issued Executive Orders that restricted the 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms didn't you? Or right before he left office, when Obama ended the wet foot dry foot Cuban refugee policy?

We're not talking about standing or kneeling during a game - we're talking about Executive Orders impacting Constitutional Rights as well as Executive Orders impacting human lives. 

So don't tell me Trump speaking out on dishonorable football players is a dangerous territory when the truth is, you've probably just been told it is by the liberal media you choose to believe and never batted an eye before at the dangerous grounds Obama treaded. 

When Trump signs an executive order on players standing - then you can say he's breached into places a POTUS shouldn't go -like Obama went. 

You can disagree with ending the policy but I really don't see how ending "wet foot dry foot" would be a "place the POTUS shouldn't go."

 

[Stealthycat]

its immigration legislation - the very thing Democrats have told Trump for a year now that he cannot do - travel and immigration restrictions etc yet its the very thing Obama did to Cubans

maybe Cuban's just don't matter?

my point is - things like pointing out the disrespect of NFL players by the President is irresponsible and un-Democratic - please, not when there are real issues with what Presidents do (and not just Obama, GW, Bush, Clinton, Trump etc) that all do and have done things and will do things that the American people need to hold them accountable for

this NFL players kneeling ? that's not a top issue and truthfully a lot of people agree with him

 

[CalBear]

its immigration legislation - the very thing Democrats have told Trump for a year now that he cannot do - travel and immigration restrictions etc yet its the very thing Obama did to Cubans

maybe Cuban's just don't matter?

my point is - things like pointing out the disrespect of NFL players by the President is irresponsible and un-Democratic - please, not when there are real issues with what Presidents do (and not just Obama, GW, Bush, Clinton, Trump etc) that all do and have done things and will do things that the American people need to hold them accountable for

this NFL players kneeling ? that's not a top issue and truthfully a lot of people agree with him

This thread is about the NFL national anthem protests. Past misdeeds of Presidents on issues not related to the NFL, suppressing protest, or the National Anthem are simply not relevant to the discussion.

 

[Bronco Billy]

This thread is about the NFL national anthem protests. Past misdeeds of Presidents on issues not related to the NFL, suppressing protest, or the National Anthem are simply not relevant to the discussion.

 

[CalBear]

A cynical take on the plan:

https://deadspin.com/the-nfls-proposal-to-end-anthem-protests-gives-the-nfl-1820876878

 The $89 million in spending breaks down over seven years, and involves donations of $250,000 per year per owner, with an equal amount contributed by players. That’s chump change, especially considering how that money might be spent.

• The rest of the money is to come from the league’s coffers, but, according to Slate, Reid believes

“that the league could simply shuffle around funds that had already been allocated to charity projects, or spend the money on public service announcements that essentially served as advertising for the league itself.”

This is of course exactly what corporations do with these kinds of PR efforts. Chevron spends way more on advertising its green programs than it does on the green programs. 

 

[renesauz]

The cause-effect doesn't makes sense though; you can't correlate it directly to protests than happen before a game starts and are seen for like 10 seconds. You can attribute it to other longstanding issues like too many commercials, decline of product (*cough*NOOLINES*COUGH), long Instant Replay times, etc. Also... other sports get popular too.

YOu haven't paid much attention to some other social media outlets then. My facebook feed has been chock full of casual fans who cite the protests as their reason not to watch this year. I don't think the NFL lost many of it's hard-core fans, but it lost a ton of the casual fans who only saw a few games yearly anyway.

 

[kface]

YOu haven't paid much attention to some other social media outlets then. My facebook feed has been chock full of casual fans who cite the protests as their reason not to watch this year. I don't think the NFL lost many of it's hard-core fans, but it lost a ton of the casual fans who only saw a few games yearly anyway.

I also think that everyone is mistakingly ignoring the number of chord cutters period.  Those numbers accelerate every year.  I watch all my nfl online now.

 

[renesauz]

You do understand the difference between private enterprise and government, I assume?  I know it sounds condescending but your post doesn’t seem to distinguish between the two.  That difference is critical in this whole anthem fiasco.  There is no government fiat.  Do you believe the Federal government is forcing NFL teams to play the anthem before games?

Massive differences between a voluntary and a government coerced act.  You seem to be under the impression it is the latter - at least your posts lend themselves that way.  This is not a First Amendment issue in any way, shape, or form.

I've never understood this line of thinking. Government coerced or privately coerced on a MASSIVE scale (as the NFL does) has the same end result.

 

[renesauz]

You don't have to go back to Nazi Germany to see this pattern. You can see it today in Russia and Turkey, among others. It's foolish to think it can't happen here.

Once again: It is irresponsible and anti-democratic for the President of the United States to suggest that people should be sanctioned for the mere act of peaceful protest. All who value democracy and freedom should be concerned.

A thousand times this. 

 

[Stealthycat]

This thread is about the NFL national anthem protests. Past misdeeds of Presidents on issues not related to the NFL, suppressing protest, or the National Anthem are simply not relevant to the discussion.

absolutely relevant when trying to say how what's been said about Trump and how he's addressing the NFL and tying it to be horrific and terrible

not wanting to see the double standards is having blinders on and hypocritical

 

[JamieMurphy]

Turns out, this isn't new money that the NFL is donating to these causes, they're just taking money away from other charities to give to these new ones. Tricky bastards. "Look at all this money we're giving to these charities! Don't look at the money we're no longer giving to veterans or breast cancer awareness..."

This.

It won't come out of billionaire's pockets, just diverting money already earmarked for a charity. Maybe the NFL could take the money it collected for years from the military (paid for by taxpayers) and put that towards this cause for justice.

 

[Short Corner]

When  Michael Bennett apologizes for lying about the LVPD, that will be a start.

This is the starting point?

 

[-OZ-]

absolutely relevant when trying to say how what's been said about Trump and how he's addressing the NFL and tying it to be horrific and terrible

not wanting to see the double standards is having blinders on and hypocritical

Both can be right. 

We can disagree on past executive practice. Preferably you'll recognize that every president pushes their authority. 

But we'll also disagree, more strongly probably, if you think those past presidential practices plausibly pardons presidential pandering pontificating.

 

[Stealthycat]

Both can be right. 

We can disagree on past executive practice. Preferably you'll recognize that every president pushes their authority. 

But we'll also disagree, more strongly probably, if you think those past presidential practices plausibly pardons presidential pandering pontificating.

I don't see it that way.

The way I judged Obama so too will I judge Trump - why would I change how I view what a President does based on party affiliation ?

Trump taking on the kneeling in the NFL is a side show, lets call it what it is. It is nothing what people here have labeled it. Its a burr to Trump and his supporters so Trump makes it national news, the media eats it up, the snowflakes goes bonkers over it.

But it isn't unconstitutional, mean, hateful, beyond his powers or anything like that. People who are calling it that is who I was reminding of the things Obama did that really WERE beyond what he should have been doing. Forgetting all those things and piling on Trump over kneeing and the NFL is being selectively forgetful

Example - I don't forget Obama enlarged national parks. As long as its done right, I 100% support that. Trump right now is trying to shrink those parks and national lands and 100% against it. My views on how to handle national lands will not change because its Trump, Obama or the next POTUS.