[POLL] United States Presidential Elections 2016

The party nominees are named. Now who do you support?


  • Total voters
    278
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
...If states rights are more important, then we will see legalized pot in all 50 states during Trump's term.
I'm not really saying that. Your a Texan too, right? Do you really think it will be legal here? I kind of doubt it.
 
Not a fan of free speech then.
Apart from the fact this is not just 'someone'. This is a public figure known for using public funds and signing laws against equal rights and is part of an administration that literally burns their opponents down to the ground in public. Again, not saying that last part is a bad thing, but if you dish it out, you better learn to suck it up as well. Ofcourse Trump is allowed his own opinion, but as a future president your words hold more weight than just the average Joe.
 
....would seem to be both inaccurate and a free speech issue. Should the President elect really be saying that criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen'?

It's not a free speech issue, at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned. The First Amendment ensures no laws will be passed the prohibit free speech, so unless Trump and Congress get together, introduce a bill to make criticizing the president and vice president illegal, he's done nothing wrong and fully within his rights to say what he said.

Seriously, ever since the election people have been throwing around potentially First Amendment violations pretty heavily without actually understand of what the Constitution protects.

Not a fan of free speech then.

Are you? From what I'm gathering from your posts is that people should be allowed to criticize Trump but Trump isn't allowed to criticize anyone in return. That's not how that works. They both should be allowed (and currently are) to criticize each other. If I've not interpreted your posts correctly, please let me know.
 
I'm surprised that the Trump tweet with regard to Mike Pense's trip[ to watch Hamilton hasn't been mentioned.
Wasn't wresting his Twitter account away from him a key part of his team's strategy late in the campaign so that he would stop saying embarrassing things? Why did they suddenly give it back to him?

Shouldn't actors in a play act and not single out someone for a moral speech in front of everyone?
It's worth bearing in mind that Hamilton isn't just "a play". It's a retelling of the life of Alexander Hamilton - one of the Founding Fathers - using a cast made up entirely of actors from minority backgrounds. The cast is meant to be representative of modern America, and one of the major themes is the way that the principles that the country were founded on transcend any one man.
 
Why did they suddenly give it back to him?

I'm curious as to how that happened as well.

It's worth bearing in mind that Hamilton isn't just "a play". It's a retelling of the life of Alexander Hamilton - one of the Founding Fathers - using a cast made up entirely of actors from minority backgrounds. The cast is meant to be representative of modern America, and one of the major themes is the way that the principles that the country were founded on transcend any one man.

I don't see how the play's premise somehow makes it ok to be childish and boo someone who is giving you business.

Frankly I'm worried about the message we are sending our kids considering a seemingly sizeable chunk of the current crop of adults can't seem to act like adults when it comes to people with different views.
 
Frankly I'm worried about the message we are sending our kids considering a seemingly sizeable chunk of the current crop of adults can't seem to act like adults when it comes to people with different views.
What's worst is that it's happening all across the spectrum, can't blame one side for this, it's a general thing.
 
Yes he did, I even quoted it and the tweet is a matter of public record.


Not a fan of free speech then.

Can you please point out where he said "criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen" please? The tweet in your original quote said this;

"Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!"

Nowhere does he say that criticism of the incoming administration should not happen. If we're going to read into things, I think it is much more plausible that he means things like that shouldn't happen in that particular place, something that I personally agree with.
 
he's done nothing wrong and fully within his rights to say what he said
It's not a great look when he is criticising people for criticising his government - especially when there are so many countries where criticism of the government actually is a crime. He might be well within his rights to say what he said, but he sure as hell lacks tact.

It's symptomatic of his attack on Alicia Machado during the election - a lengthy, unnecessary and altogether ugly exchange that he was never going to win. It would have been better then, as now, to let sleeping dogs lie.

I don't see how the play's premise somehow makes it ok to be childish and boo someone who is giving you business.
Actually, as I understand it, Dixon - the actor who addressed Pence - was actually very polite and eloquent in his address:

"We, sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."
 
I know, I shook my head when I read about the Trump Starbucks thing.

I wonder how much of this is really happening versus how big of a deal the media is making it out to be?

It's not a great look when he is criticising people for criticising his government - especially when there are so many countries where criticism of the government actually is a crime. He might be well within his rights to say what he said, but he sure as hell lacks tact.

It's symptomatic of his attack on Alicia Machado during the election - a lengthy, unnecessary and altogether ugly exchange that he was never going to win. It would have been better then, as now, to let sleeping dogs lie.

I'm not arguing if it's in poor taste or not, I'm merely saying it isn't an attack on freedom of speech unless Trump makes, or attempts to make, a law regarding it. I support his right to say what he wants as long as it's within the outline of the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Nowhere does he say that criticism of the incoming administration should not happen. If we're going to read into things, I think it is much more plausible that he means things like that shouldn't happen in that particular place, something that I personally agree with.

They thanked Pence for coming and made this statement: "We, sir, we, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."

That's not harassment in any way. Trump realizes this very well too and decides to incite his followers anyway. At the same time, he's completely silent about people drawing swastikas in his name at the Adam Yauch playground. What does that tell you about your future president?
 
Steve Bannon, Jeff Sessions. Flynn, though technically his anti-islam rethoric is not racism. Though of course none of those are in office just yet.
I know Bannon as the ex chief of Breitbart, the other two not as much. But is this 'proven racists' grounded in something they actually stated or did, or does this come from opinions or stuff that have been pulled out of context again?

Not a fan of free speech then.
Free speech yes. Singling out a single member of your audience for a public hammering due to his political beliefs, whilst all you are supposed to do is to perform for said audience, not so much.

Apart from the fact this is not just 'someone'. This is a public figure known for using public funds and signing laws against equal rights and is part of an administration that literally burns their opponents down to the ground in public. Again, not saying that last part is a bad thing, but if you dish it out, you better learn to suck it up as well. Ofcourse Trump is allowed his own opinion, but as a future president your words hold more weight than just the average Joe.
Again there's a moment and place for that. This was not the time nor the place.
 
They thanked Pence for coming and made this statement: "We, sir, we, are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We truly hope that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."

That's not harassment in any way. Trump realizes this very well too and decides to incite his followers anyway. At the same time, he's completely silent about people drawing swastikas in his name at the Adam Yauch playground. What does that tell you about your future president?

I agree, it isn't harassment at all and I never claimed it was.

Trump ignoring things doesn't tell me anything.
 
It's not a free speech issue, at least as far as the First Amendment is concerned. The First Amendment ensures no laws will be passed the prohibit free speech, so unless Trump and Congress get together, introduce a bill to make criticizing the president and vice president illegal, he's done nothing wrong and fully within his rights to say what he said.

Seriously, ever since the election people have been throwing around potentially First Amendment violations pretty heavily without actually understand of what the Constitution protects.

Are you? From what I'm gathering from your posts is that people should be allowed to criticize Trump but Trump isn't allowed to criticize anyone in return. That's not how that works. They both should be allowed (and currently are) to criticize each other. If I've not interpreted your posts correctly, please let me know.
Trump is the President elect, he is the voice of the future administration and as such is not a private citizen.

You seem to be suggesting that this is no different than two people having a discussion, when one of them is in fact very soon to be the single most powerful individual in the country, has the power of the executive and as such when he says discussions of any nature should not happen then he is the government commenting on the limitation of free speech.


Can you please point out where he said "criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen" please? The tweet in your original quote said this;

"Our wonderful future V.P. Mike Pence was harassed last night at the theater by the cast of Hamilton, cameras blazing.This should not happen!"

Nowhere does he say that criticism of the incoming administration should not happen. If we're going to read into things, I think it is much more plausible that he means things like that shouldn't happen in that particular place, something that I personally agree with.
So what exactly was the 'This...' he was referring to?

Was in not the director of the play commenting on his concerns and fears about the incoming administration?

If that's the kind of 'harassment' of an administration that needs to be stopped (and needs the President Elect to demand it stops) then the next four years are ones I'm glad to be observing from a good distance!
 
Usually when "there's a time and place for X" is brought up as an argument the real message is "I don't want to hear about that at all"; like when cost objections to some government program for disadvantaged people are buffeted with "think about how beneficial that money could be to veterans instead" when they really mean "I just don't want those people to have it"
 
Free speech yes. Singling out a single member of your audience for a public hammering due to his political beliefs, whilst all you are supposed to do is to perform for said audience, not so much.
All he is supposed to do according to who?
 
Trump is the President elect, he is the voice of the future administration and as such is not a private citizen.

You seem to be suggesting that this is no different than two people having a discussion, when one of them is in fact very soon to be the single most powerful individual in the country, has the power of the executive and as such when he says discussions of any nature should not happen then he is the government commenting on the limitation of free speech.

Trump is still a US citizen and still protected by the Constitution and all the rights it offers, so I'm not sure what you're applying with that. Whether he's the president or some Schmo off the street doesn't matter.

And that is what I'm suggesting, it's a discussion, albeit a rather public one and probably in poor taste. As long as Trump doesn't use his power to petition Congress to make a law regarding criticizing political figures he's not doing anything illegal nor is he limiting free speech in anyway.

I honestly don't care what Trump says, they're just words, unless he acts upon them and attempts to make Unconstitutional laws he's free to say what he wants, even if it's in poor taste.
 
Trump is the President elect, he is the voice of the future administration and as such is not a private citizen.

You seem to be suggesting that this is no different than two people having a discussion, when one of them is in fact very soon to be the single most powerful individual in the country, has the power of the executive and as such when he says discussions of any nature should not happen then he is the government commenting on the limitation of free speech.



So what exactly was the 'This...' he was referring to?

Was in not the director of the play commenting on his concerns and fears about the incoming administration?

If that's the kind of 'harassment' of an administration that needs to be stopped (and needs the President Elect to demand it stops) then the next four years are ones I'm glad to be observing from a good distance!

I don't know what "this" refers to, we can only speculate. However, the claim was that he said criticism of the incoming administration should not happen, those words didn't come out of his mouth. You may interpret what he said that way, but that isn't the same thing as saying it.
 
People that bought a ticket.
Given that they seemed (by the booing) to have far more of an issue with Pence being in the audience I don't think you get to make that assumption for them.

Nor does buying a ticket to a play mean you get to control what happens on stage, that damn free speech thing again.
 
Given that they seemed (by the booing) to have far more of an issue with Pence being in the audience I don't think you get to make that assumption for them.

Nor does buying a ticket to a play mean you get to control what happens on stage, that damn free speech thing again.
Would you appreciate the cook coming out of the kitchen to give you a sermon in front of the restaurant, whilst all you want was to have a quiet evening dinner with the misses?

Again there's a time and a place for that, this was not the place.
The booing was pretty childish too, but heck free speech right?
 
Trump is still a US citizen and still protected by the Constitution and all the rights it offers, so I'm not sure what you're applying with that. Whether he's the president or some Schmo off the street doesn't matter.

And that is what I'm suggesting, it's a discussion, albeit a rather public one and probably in poor taste. As long as Trump doesn't use his power to petition Congress to make a law regarding criticizing political figures he's not doing anything illegal nor is he limiting free speech in anyway.

I honestly don't care what Trump says, they're just words, unless he acts upon them and attempts to make Unconstitutional laws he's free to say what he wants, even if it's in poor taste.
So the words a President or President elect use publicly have no effect, impact or meaning until they attempt to put it in law?

You have no issue at all with the man who is going to run the country stating that a certain type of conversation should not happen in a certain location?

However if it did happen to me, I would consider it a bit odd, but engage them in conversation, I wouldn't expect my boss to misrepresent the events and wade in.

I don't know what "this" refers to, we can only speculate. However, the claim was that he said criticism of the incoming administration should not happen, those words didn't come out of his mouth. You may interpret what he said that way, but that isn't the same thing as saying it.
No we don't need to speculate at all.

The tweet is quite clear that the 'This...' is the 'harassment' he received from 'the cast' and given that the casts words are a matter of record no speculation is needed at all.

"Vice President-Elect Pence, I see you walking out, but I hope you hear us, just a few more moments," Dixon said as some of the audience members booed Pence. "There is nothing to boo here ladies and gentlemen, there is nothing to boo here. We are all here sharing a story of love. We have a message for you sir and we hope that you will hear us out."

Dixon said the cast welcomed Pence and thanked him for attending. He encouraged audience members to pull out their phones to record and to post on social media.

"We sir, we are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights, sir," Dixon added. "But we truly hope, that this show has inspired you to uphold our American values and to work on behalf of all of us."

Would you appreciate the cook coming out of the kitchen to give you a sermon in front of the restaurant, whilst all you want was to have a quiet evening dinner with the misses?

First it wasn't a sermon, it was actually a very polite and respectful address and request.

If I was about to become the vice-president of a country, then I would listen to what they had to say and discuss it with them.

If I was about to become the president of the same country I would say that they had a right to say what they had to say and invite them to discuss those concerns with me in person.

Again there's a time and a place for that, this was not the place.
Not a choice you get to make.

The booing was pretty childish too, but heck free speech right?
Yep.

If a politician can't deal with that, then they are most certainly in the wrong job.
 
Last edited:
So the words a President or President elect use publicly have no effect, impact or meaning until they attempt to put it in law?

You have no issue at all with the man who is going to run the country stating that a certain type of conversation should not happen in a certain location?

Unless those words violate the Constitution or somehow put national security at risk, then no I don't care. I might think he's an ass for saying them or I might disagree with them, but it doesn't change the fact he's allowed to say those things. And saying things doesn't really have an impact on the country unless the president attempts to act on them. He can say till he's blue in the face that people shouldn't criticize him or the VP, but unless he tries to change the law there's nothing preventing anyone from ignoring that and continuing to criticize him as long as they don't burn cities down and riot like so many of these "protests" are doing.

I think you're being a little hypocritical here, yes the cast of the play had a right to say what they said, just as Trump had the right to say what he said. You definition of freedom of speech shouldn't change based on who's doing the speech.
 
I wonder how much of this is really happening versus how big of a deal the media is making it out to be?

I'm guessing (and hoping) it's the latter, but even if that's the case it's still sets a bad example where some kid might think it's ok to act like that, switching it to the former.
 
Unless those words violate the Constitution or somehow put national security at risk, then no I don't care. I might think he's an ass for saying them or I might disagree with them, but it doesn't change the fact he's allowed to say those things. And saying things doesn't really have an impact on the country unless the president attempts to act on them. He can say till he's blue in the face that people shouldn't criticize him or the VP, but unless he tries to change the law there's nothing preventing anyone from ignoring that and continuing to criticize him as long as they don't burn cities down and riot like so many of these "protests" are doing.

I think you're being a little hypocritical here, yes the cast of the play had a right to say what they said, just as Trump had the right to say what he said. You definition of freedom of speech shouldn't change based on who's doing the speech.
You will note that I haven't said that Trump can't say what he did, I asked the question of if doing so was something he should be doing (given his position and how it may well be viewed by people on both sides of the political divide).

What I said was "Should the President elect really be saying that criticism of the incoming administration 'should not happen'?"

I also mentioned that it "could be seen as a free speech issue", which I think (again given his position and influence) it could well be.

At no point have I said he wasn't allowed, or should not be allowed to do it (so no I'm not close to be hypocritical); however I do find the manner in which a perfectly polite question was misrepresented (it wasn't harassment) and responded to reflects badly on both Trump the person and the office he is soon to hold.
 
So the words a President or President elect use publicly have no effect, impact or meaning until they attempt to put it in law?

You have no issue at all with the man who is going to run the country stating that a certain type of conversation should not happen in a certain location?

It doesn't really matter whether Joey has an issue with whatever stupid thing Trump said. It's not a freedom of speech issue unless he actually takes steps to act on it after he is actually put in a position of power, and that was the foundation you framed your original post on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back