2024 Presidential Race

#31,277
#31,277
utvolpj said:
The Supreme Court says it's protected speech. The act you cite was struck down as unconstitutional. What Trump said would also be unconstitutional.

Burning any other flag is protected as well as long as it can't be construed as a direct threat
Click to expand...
Burning any flag that YOU OWN is protected speech. Burning someone else’s flag (including public flags which are purchased with taxpayer funds) is THEFT and should be dealt with accordingly.
The pro-Hamas „protesters“ were not burning their own flags.
Here is where it gets incongruous though. If I drive my car over a pride flag mural on a city street and peel out leaving skid marks I will be charged with a felony hate crime. If I did the same to an American Flag mural, I would suffer no consequences and probably even be praised by the left. So what exactly is the legal distinction that allow that to happen? Either both should be allowed or both should be punished. That is what Americans are talking about when the allude to a two tier justice system
 
  • Like
Reactions: MemphisVol77, tnhunter 10, whodeycin85 and 9 others
#31,280
#31,280
volbound1700 said:
Frankly, the issue is with Americans. They wouldn't vote for the BEST if they were in the election. We look at dumb stuff when we vote for candidates and some of us listen way to much to the media and don't research facts.
Click to expand...
Well we do have the attn span of a goldfish now as well.
 
#31,282
#31,282
utvolpj said:
The Supreme Court says it's protected speech. The act you cite was struck down as unconstitutional. What Trump said would also be unconstitutional.

Burning any other flag is protected as well as long as it can't be construed as a direct threat
Click to expand...
Is that display in DC a threat? They were burning American flags, waving "Palestinian" flags and putting up graffiti that called for the death of Jews. Taken separately, the burned flag might not be a threat, but in conjunction with those other activities I think it sure as hell is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CagleMtnVol and W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,284
#31,284
This is just talk, and by a Linton to boot. But I post it because I have had similar thoughts on the issue as well as ole JD being, yes, I'm saying it, Too MAGA.
I didn't think that was possible, but then again....

If ole Trumpon does make this move, AND, if he gives Nik, babe her head, I honestly believe he will have an unbeatable ticket. So much so, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say, don't bother waiting for November, just swear TrumPutin in now and save the time.
 
#31,285
#31,285
USF grad in TN said:
What was Hillary's plan?
Click to expand...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

President Clinton's proposal for health care reform: key provisions and issues - PubMed

Shortly after his election in 1992, President Clinton appointed a health care reform task force to develop a proposal for providing health care benefits for all American citizens and legal residents. Between February and May 1993 the Interdepartmental Working Group, composed of more than 30...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The Health Security Act was introduced in November 1993. Besides universal coverage and a basic benefit package, provisions included health insurance reform, regional alliances for structuring competition among health insurance plans, consumer choice of health plans, and provisions for Medicaid beneficiaries. Proposed mental health and substance abuse provisions included coverage of intensive nonresidential services, medical management, evaluation and assessment services, and case management. Initial limitations on coverage of inpatient mental health services and psychotherapy would be removed by 2001. The Clinton plan also called for integration of public mental health and substance abuse services into the full range of health services offered by local health plans.
 
#31,286
#31,286
WoodsmanVol said:
This is just talk, and by a Linton to boot. But I post it because I have had similar thoughts on the issue as well as ole JD being, yes, I'm saying it, Too MAGA.
I didn't think that was possible, but then again....

If ole Trumpon does make this move, AND, if he gives Nik, babe her head, I honestly believe he will have an unbeatable ticket. So much so, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say, don't bother waiting for November, just swear TrumPutin in now and save the time.
Click to expand...
200.gif
 
#31,288
#31,288
dovervolz said:
Let's get it right, burning a public flag is unconstutional And it carries a $1000 fine and/or 1 yr in jail according to the flag protection act of 1989. You saying Trump's comment was unconstutional. Burning your own flag is free speech. And what's really wrong is if i buy a pride flag and burn it then the libs claim it's a hate crime. Go figure
Click to expand...

Looked more like an insurrection.
 
  • Like
Reactions: whodeycin85 and dovervolz
#31,290
#31,290
The kickback and rejection of the term border czar is interesting to me.

I remember Biden using the term. I've seen multiple pundits from both sides of the isle use it when discussing Harris.

Now it's a term they are trying to untether her from, disassociate with. That tells me two things:

1) It's a bad look for her..... obvious reasons. Biden gave it to her to take some of the pressure off him and look like he was attempting to do something about our open borders with actually doing anything.

2) Harris was never really to be taken seriously. That they could saddle her with this token title. The fact it never occurred to them it could harm her future political aspirations tells me they had no plans for her. The fact they are scrambling to scrub it now screams desperation backup plan.

Or maybe I'm wrong, is there another way to interpret this I'm missing?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: walkenvol, MemphisVol77 and W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,291
#31,291
KB5252 said:
The kickback and rejection of the term border czar is interesting to me.

I remember Biden using the term. I've seen multiple pundits from both sides of the isle use it when discussing Harris.

Now it's a term they are trying to untether her from, disassociate with. That tells me two things:

1) It's a bad look for her..... obvious reasons. Biden gave it to her to take some of the pressure off him and look like he was attempting to do something about our open borders with actually doing anything.

2) Harris was never really to be taken seriously. That they could saddle her with this token title. The fact it never occurred to them it could harm her future political aspirations tells me they had no plans for her. The fact they are scrambling to scrub it now screens desperation.

Or maybe I'm wrong, is there another way to interpret this I'm missing?
Click to expand...
I think they just realize it's a losing issue and she was a total failure at the job. At the end of the day, it's not something worth lying like this over. if the media is willing to literally outright lie on behalf of a candidate, what else have they lied about? If Trump is 10% as bad as the left claims he is, why lie? I want a single leftoid on this board to denounce the media over this BS.

At the end of the day, a minuscule, unnecessary media lie about Trump in 2016 led me to researching him more and eventually voting for him.
 
  • Like
Reactions: W.TN.Orange Blood
#31,292
#31,292
ButchPlz said:
I think they just realize it's a losing issue and she was a total failure at the job. At the end of the day, it's not something worth lying like this over. if the media is willing to literally outright lie on behalf of a candidate, what else have they lied about? If Trump is 10% as bad as the left claims he is, why lie? I want a single leftoid on this board to denounce the media over this BS.

At the end of the day, a minuscule, unnecessary media lie about Trump in 2016 led me to researching him more and eventually voting for him.
Click to expand...
She's not really responsible for it though. She really did next to nothing as VP. This was Bidens failure but they can't pin him with it because they denied it was problem until recently.

You're right about it being a losing issue for them though.
 
Last edited:
#31,295
#31,295
KB5252 said:
The kickback and rejection of the term border czar is interesting to me.

I remember Biden using the term. I've seen multiple pundits from both sides of the isle use it when discussing Harris.

Now it's a term they are trying to untether her from, disassociate with. That tells me two things:

1) It's a bad look for her..... obvious reasons. Biden gave it to her to take some of the pressure off him and look like he was attempting to do something about our open borders with actually doing anything.

2) Harris was never really to be taken seriously. That they could saddle her with this token title. The fact it never occurred to them it could harm her future political aspirations tells me they had no plans for her. The fact they are scrambling to scrub it now screens desperation.

Or maybe I'm wrong, is there another way to interpret this I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Here's something openly stating where Biden assigned her to the role and describes her "appointment as his immigration czar".

www.bbc.com

Biden tasks Harris with tackling migrant influx on US-Mexico border

The numbers of migrants crossing the southern US border has risen since Mr Biden took office.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
 
  • Like
Reactions: 508mikey
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top