Political Roundtable Part XV

[I_Like_Dirt]

I can see people questioning you being in favor of a redistribution of wealth, though. I don't doubt you, but the reality is, for better or worse, Bernie was very clearly for such a redistribution. Trump was pretty much the exact opposite. Trump did talk that game to a point, I suppose, but the stuff he was saying was clearly unworkable, even as a starting point in terms of sharing the wealth, and Trump has a long enough track record of being about Trump that anyone who believes anything else about him is more than kidding themselves at this point. We may not know what his goals are at the time he takes any particular action, but we know what his motivation is. Bernie, too, has been remarkably consistent over the years in terms of expressing what his motivation is. Equating the two is incredibly dangerous, kinda like wishing the weather would stop raining every day, but since you can't have a sunny day, settling for several tornados and a hailstorm instead.

[cammac]

I agree, SD. Both Trump and Bernie had their own games unlike more traditional political aspirants who tend to have their own games line up with their party's games. That's where the similarities end, though. Trump's game is clearly all about Trump regardless of how he goes about it or who he has to step on to achieve it. Bernie is completely different - whether or not you feel his plans were realistic or not, his goals are clearly not about himself and are an attempt to make things better for the majority, and in particular those who are currently the worst off in society. Not all change is change for the better, and it's absolutely critical to watch for that and be the driver of change for the better, not change for change's sake. That said, given how few people actually ever change their vote from one political party to another, it's also pretty clear that a majority of Americans don't actually want change beyond their party to simply win all the time regardless of any particular policies.

well you are touching on part of the reason i voted for Bernie. Bernie's altruistic platform was essentially a re-distibrution of wealth top to bottom which i clearly favor if you have been paying attention. If he had half a brain cell working, it should have been followed up with massive tax increases on the super wealthy (in an attempt) to pay for it; including retroactive taxes (estate, foundations, etc.)...almost full on socialism which I'm not opposed to as an ideology to instigate radical change. I think he had the will of the people behind him and enough political capital, given he didn't lose his ideological backbone once elected-something they all seem to do.

Balance is everything and while I found Bernie a breath air but he was also trying too much too quickly you are trying to take a "Luddite Society" politically into a totally reformed Social Democracy. While it might be "Utopian" it is unrealistic. All you have to do is look at the current Republican choice in Alabama..... Strange is regressive and Moore is a knuckles dragging Neanderthal. To think part of the American society can be dragged into the 20th Century little less the 21st is futile.

[popper]

Thought this was kind of interesting.

…. The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.
The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

https://news.grabien.com/story-roger-goodell-ignoring-leagues-own-rule-book-letting-players

Also, a buddy of mine emailed this to me;

In September 2016, three NFL players planned to wear cleats in honor of the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. The NFL put a stop to it with threats of fines.

In 2015, the NFL fined a player $5,757 for wearing eye black that read “Find the Cure” in support of breast cancer awareness.

In July 2016, in honor of five police officer murdered in cold blood, the Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor the slain officers with a small helmet decal. The NFL put a stop to it.

In 2015, NFL player William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats meant to raise awareness for domestic abuse.

[stilldropin20]

I agree, SD. Both Trump and Bernie had their own games unlike more traditional political aspirants who tend to have their own games line up with their party's games. That's where the similarities end, though. Trump's game is clearly all about Trump regardless of how he goes about it or who he has to step on to achieve it. Bernie is completely different - whether or not you feel his plans were realistic or not, his goals are clearly not about himself and are an attempt to make things better for the majority, and in particular those who are currently the worst off in society. Not all change is change for the better, and it's absolutely critical to watch for that and be the driver of change for the better, not change for change's sake. That said, given how few people actually ever change their vote from one political party to another, it's also pretty clear that a majority of Americans don't actually want change beyond their party to simply win all the time regardless of any particular policies.

well you are touching on part of the reason i voted for Bernie. Bernie's altruistic platform was essentially a re-distibrution of wealth top to bottom which i clearly favor if you have been paying attention. If he had half a brain cell working, it should have been followed up with massive tax increases on the super wealthy (in an attempt) to pay for it; including retroactive taxes (estate, foundations, etc.)...almost full on socialism which I'm not opposed to as an ideology to instigate radical change. I think he had the will of the people behind him and enough political capital, given he didn't lose his ideological backbone once elected-something they all seem to do.

Balance is everything and while I found Bernie a breath air but he was also trying too much too quickly you are trying to take a "Luddite Society" politically into a totally reformed Social Democracy. While it might be "Utopian" it is unrealistic. All you have to do is look at the current Republican choice in Alabama..... Strange is regressive and Moore is a knuckles dragging Neanderthal. To think part of the American society can be dragged into the 20th Century little less the 21st is futile.

Let's stick to ideologies and not worry about which agent supports whatever given ideology and just stick to the ideology.

Ideally, I dont think we want the wealthy elite ruling class hoarding wealth and buying off politicians with that wealth so as to continue to influence legislation in a way that further enriches themeselves unless the vast and overwhelming majority of americans are simultaneously benefitting just as much? and even then we still dont want them hoarding too much of the wealth, correct? So I ask that question of the entire board. Who agrees with this basic premise that we dont want a wealthy elite ruling class at all and especially not to be able to easily pay off our politicians for favorable legislation?

I assume nearly everyone agrees with that except the few scant idiots that still think they are going to end up super wealthy and one of the elite ruling class?

So if we dont want that...how do we legally get our politician to write legislation to go after that wealth? And do so before they run off or paris, London, Dubai, Switzerland? Or better, get London, Paris, Germany, et al on board with us in a legal seizure of this wealth. How do we pull this off?

[Wizardspride]

I agree, SD. Both Trump and Bernie had their own games unlike more traditional political aspirants who tend to have their own games line up with their party's games. That's where the similarities end, though. Trump's game is clearly all about Trump regardless of how he goes about it or who he has to step on to achieve it. Bernie is completely different - whether or not you feel his plans were realistic or not, his goals are clearly not about himself and are an attempt to make things better for the majority, and in particular those who are currently the worst off in society. Not all change is change for the better, and it's absolutely critical to watch for that and be the driver of change for the better, not change for change's sake. That said, given how few people actually ever change their vote from one political party to another, it's also pretty clear that a majority of Americans don't actually want change beyond their party to simply win all the time regardless of any particular policies.

well you are touching on part of the reason i voted for Bernie. Bernie's altruistic platform was essentially a re-distibrution of wealth top to bottom which i clearly favor if you have been paying attention. If he had half a brain cell working, it should have been followed up with massive tax increases on the super wealthy (in an attempt) to pay for it; including retroactive taxes (estate, foundations, etc.)...almost full on socialism which I'm not opposed to as an ideology to instigate radical change. I think he had the will of the people behind him and enough political capital, given he didn't lose his ideological backbone once elected-something they all seem to do.

Ok. NOW I finally see why you voted for Bernie.

What I don't see is why you supported Trump who wants to do literally the opposite.

Heck, Hillary (warts and all) is much more aligned with Sanders than Trump.

[popper]

Another reason our country is in so much trouble.


Survey: Just A Quarter Of Americans Can Name All 3 Branches Of Government


PHILADELPHIA — A sizable portion of the American public seems to show little interest in the fabric of the country’s government and history, a new survey finds.

Researchers at the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) surveyed over 1,000 American adults, finding a shocking lack of knowledge as it pertains to U.S. politics among the general populace.

In a new survey of American adults, just a quarter were able to name all three branches of the federal government, while 37% couldn’t name a single right protected by First Amendment.

Fifty-three percent of respondents believed the falsehood that illegal immigrants aren’t granted any constitutional rights, while 37 percent couldn’t even name a single right endowed by the First Amendment.

Thankfully, 48 percent of those surveyed were able to identify freedom of speech as being a right enshrined by the First Amendment, although far fewer could identify other rights accorded.

These include freedom of religion (15 percent), freedom of the press (14 percent), right of peaceful assembly (10 percent), and right to petition the government (three percent).

“Protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution presupposes that we know what they are. The fact that many don’t is worrisome,” says Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center (APPC) of the University of Pennsylvania, in a press release. “These results emphasize the need for high-quality civics education in the schools and for press reporting that underscores the existence of constitutional protections.”

Meanwhile, only 26 percent of Americans could name all three branches of the federal government — that would be the executive, legislative, and judicial, for those playing at home.

While conservatives were more likely to be able to name all three branches than liberals or moderates, the overall proportion of the public that can name all three has fallen by 12 percent since 2011.

Perhaps most embarrassing: a full third of respondents couldn’t name a single federal branch of government, a figure that hasn’t shifted over the past half-decade…..

https://www.studyfinds.org/government-american-history-survey/

[Wizardspride]

I posted this in the "Wizards in the Media" thread also.

Read on Twitter

[DCZards]

Thought this was kind of interesting.

…. The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.
The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

https://news.grabien.com/story-roger-goodell-ignoring-leagues-own-rule-book-letting-players

Also, a buddy of mine emailed this to me;

In September 2016, three NFL players planned to wear cleats in honor of the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. The NFL put a stop to it with threats of fines.

In 2015, the NFL fined a player $5,757 for wearing eye black that read “Find the Cure” in support of breast cancer awareness.

In July 2016, in honor of five police officer murdered in cold blood, the Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor the slain officers with a small helmet decal. The NFL put a stop to it.

In 2015, NFL player William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats meant to raise awareness for domestic abuse.

I'm sure the NFL recognizes that social justice is a significant concern in this country, one that disproportionately impacts African Americans, who also happen to make up the overwhelming majority of NFL players. So I'm sure the league is (wisely) being very careful about seeming to stand in the way of players' freedom to peacefully express their concerns.

[popper]

Thought this was kind of interesting.

…. The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.
The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

https://news.grabien.com/story-roger-goodell-ignoring-leagues-own-rule-book-letting-players

Also, a buddy of mine emailed this to me;

In September 2016, three NFL players planned to wear cleats in honor of the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. The NFL put a stop to it with threats of fines.

In 2015, the NFL fined a player $5,757 for wearing eye black that read “Find the Cure” in support of breast cancer awareness.

In July 2016, in honor of five police officer murdered in cold blood, the Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor the slain officers with a small helmet decal. The NFL put a stop to it.

In 2015, NFL player William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats meant to raise awareness for domestic abuse.

I'm sure the NFL recognizes that social justice is a significant concern in this country, one that disproportionately impacts African Americans, who also happen to make up the overwhelming majority of NFL players. So I'm sure the league is wisely being very careful standing in the way of players' freedom to peacefully show their concerns.

I agree. Though I don't understand how protesting the flag or the National Anthem contributes to the cause of social justice. Maybe you or someone else on the thread can explain it to me.

[DCZards]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".




Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

[Wizardspride]

Read on Twitter

[NatP4]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".




Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

[Wizardspride]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".




Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

"You had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name."-- Donald Trump

"Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners — when somebody disrespects our flag — to say, 'Get that son of a b*tch off the field right now. Out. He's fired. He's fired!'- Donald Trump

Those are the quotes. What's being taken out of context?

[DCZards]

Trump supporters (some) make so many excuses for his behavior.

1.)"Yeah, he's a little over the top now but once he's elected he'll moderate"

2.)"He's just not PC. He tells it like it is"

3.)He's going to drain the swamp. Kick the bums out. He's different. He's not bought like "Crooked Hillary"

4.)He's not racist. He's just America first".




Please.

When someone consistently shows you who they are, believe them.

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

I stand corrected on the Charlottesville quote. He said that there were "some very fine people" marching on both sides in Charlottesville. (Although I find it hard to believe that "very fine people" would be marching with white nationalists.)

The SOB quote is accurate.

[Wizardspride]

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

I stand corrected on the Charlottesville quote. He said that there were "some very fine people" marching on both sides in Charlottesville. The SOB quote is accurate.

Nah. BOTH of them are accurate.

If you're a white supremacist/neo nazi YOU CANNOT be a fine person.

Nope. Not accepting that.

[stilldropin20]

I agree, SD. Both Trump and Bernie had their own games unlike more traditional political aspirants who tend to have their own games line up with their party's games. That's where the similarities end, though. Trump's game is clearly all about Trump regardless of how he goes about it or who he has to step on to achieve it. Bernie is completely different - whether or not you feel his plans were realistic or not, his goals are clearly not about himself and are an attempt to make things better for the majority, and in particular those who are currently the worst off in society. Not all change is change for the better, and it's absolutely critical to watch for that and be the driver of change for the better, not change for change's sake. That said, given how few people actually ever change their vote from one political party to another, it's also pretty clear that a majority of Americans don't actually want change beyond their party to simply win all the time regardless of any particular policies.

well you are touching on part of the reason i voted for Bernie. Bernie's altruistic platform was essentially a re-distibrution of wealth top to bottom which i clearly favor if you have been paying attention. If he had half a brain cell working, it should have been followed up with massive tax increases on the super wealthy (in an attempt) to pay for it; including retroactive taxes (estate, foundations, etc.)...almost full on socialism which I'm not opposed to as an ideology to instigate radical change. I think he had the will of the people behind him and enough political capital, given he didn't lose his ideological backbone once elected-something they all seem to do.

Ok. NOW I finally see why you voted for Bernie.

What I don't see is why you supported Trump who wants to do literally the opposite.

Heck, Hillary (warts and all) is much more aligned with Sanders than Trump.

Do you think the wealthiest of wealthy, the elite international ruling class is giving up their wealth without a fight? and by fight I mean scorched phuckin earth. they will burn the entire globe down to the ground before they relinquish their wealth. They practically burned it all down in ww1 and then again in ww2. 100,000,000 (what i call innocent) human beings died on all sides of those wars and for what!!?? I would guess that 95% of those soldiers were even dumber than todays soldiers...and again, keep in mind I was a soldier. we are trained to just follow orders. at the end of these wars the european lines on the map changed a tiny bit but the game remains the same. Of course Africa, the middle east, and asia all had new lines and new owners after these wars. In the end, the same ruling class that existed before the ww1 still exists now, somehow they get through these wars with their families and wealth intact. and with some new comers at the table. Human beings are still tragically taken advantage of all over the globe. We are destroying the earth, they say. all so we can do what? produce and consume. Produce and consume!!!!

To make radical changes we need major european, south american, african, and middle eastern countries on board, but most importantly we need Russia. Putin already nationalized the banks last year. Last summer June 26th I believe. He has already begun to sieze their wealth. we cant get them on board without a massive military. MASSIVE!!

Or else, the existing ruling class will always have a place to run and protect their wealth. And they will then buy off those politicians in every single country they flee to and engage us directly via those countries military. I mean why do you think the UN even exists? I know what they said. I learned that in school too. But really, Its a tool of the wealthy elite ruling class used to protect their international wealth. and nato is their militia.

I mean think about it for a second...who stands to lose the most in WW3?? Thats right. The people that have the most. How can a bank fund both sides of a war and when a victor emerges after said war that the victor agrees to take on and pay off the debts of the losers to the banks that funded both sides?? Why dont we tell the banks to go eff themselves!!?? Because in a way, no war exists without funding, right? You gotta pay for the weapons and the soldiers...yet every single war. the bankers all get their money. makes no sense. except to the wealthy elite ruling class who pays off the politicians to make such legislation that makes it legal. Here's an idea. You funded Hitler!? Then you are just as guilty as he is. Why dont we try them for war crimes instead!!!

so take on the wealthy elite ruling class, we need to be ready. we need guns. lots of em. Think 2nd amendment (trump). and big guns, a super strong military (trump). And we need a radical maverick that has his own money so as not to be easily bought off by their massive wealth (trump). we need a guy willing to stand up to them. Trump has filed massive bankruptcies one of which was 1.6 Billion. He aint no friend with these elite ruling class bankers and corporations that own CNN, NBC, etc. who drag him over the coals every single day. Nor is Putin who already nationalized a lot of their wealth via the nationalizing the russian central banking system and is taking their oil interests by force in the middle east.

why do you think they so desperately dont want trump and putin to get along??? Ever think about that??

This shxt is bigger and deeper than all the identity politics disguised to distract you. Trump is clumsy. A complete baffoon at times. But this moron has stumbled his way into the beginning of change. and he may not know what he is doing. But he has them scarred shixtless, regardless. and not because he himself can invoke ww3. he cant. too many checks and balances. Only they know how to to pull those global strings, build up that kind of narrative and get away with it. they've been pulling those global strings for centuries.

I happen to think its a good thing that they are scarred. Bernie scarred them too. You know they are scarred because in between the lines on CNN you can just smell it in the air. You watch FOX when trump gets off the standard GOP message and then they get scarred. Cuz they own both the establishment Dems and the republincan. Thats why they bought off the super delegates in the DNC before the primaries even started (and did the same to Barrack by the way) and closed the primaries and refused to re-open the primaries even though the will of the people clearly wanted Bernie. The wealthy elite ruling class needs politicians to stay in their lane(which keeps the ruling class' wealth protected) so they can continue to rule vie their wealth.

and thats not how it is suppose to be. we the people are suppose to be governed by our "will" executed by those we elect into office to serve us. Not the elite ruling class. But every singel damn politician either willingly plays ball or is made to play ball via blackmailing because no human is "perfect." news flash folks!! No one is perfect. If we keep holding our politicians to that standard they will easily be black mailed and controlled.

If we can just stop watching porn and stop talking about meaningless nonsense long enough we just may be able to discover some truths and educate each other and realize that we are all in this together certainly as a country first (trump is a hardcore nationalists) and then maybe globally as a human race.

wake up!

[NatP4]

Yup...DT has repeatedly shown us who he is. The white nationalists who march with torches through the streets of Charlottesville, VA are "very fine people," while the black men who peacefully take a knee to protest social injustice are "sons of bitches."

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

I stand corrected on the Charlottesville quote. He said that there were "some very fine people" marching on both sides in Charlottesville. (Although I find it hard to believe that "very fine people" would be marching with white nationalists.)

The SOB quote is accurate.

The SOB quote is not accurate, you, like everyone else, is attempting to frame it as a racist phrase, you literally changed the wording. you are being dishonest

[Pointgod]

Thought this was kind of interesting.

…. The NFL rule book specifically requires both teams appear on the field for the playing of the anthem, standing, remaining quiet, and holding their helmets in their left hands. Failure to do so can result in fines, suspensions, and the loss of draft picks.
The rules are found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual:

The National Anthem must be played prior to every NFL game, and all players must be on the sideline for the National Anthem.
During the National Anthem, players on the field and bench area should stand at attention, face the flag, hold helmets in their left hand, and refrain from talking. The home team should ensure that the American flag is in good condition. It should be pointed out to players and coaches that we continue to be judged by the public in this area of respect for the flag and our country. Failure to be on the field by the start of the National Anthem may result in discipline, such as fines, suspensions, and/or the forfeiture of draft choice(s) for violations of the above, including first offenses.

https://news.grabien.com/story-roger-goodell-ignoring-leagues-own-rule-book-letting-players

Also, a buddy of mine emailed this to me;

In September 2016, three NFL players planned to wear cleats in honor of the 15th anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America. The NFL put a stop to it with threats of fines.

In 2015, the NFL fined a player $5,757 for wearing eye black that read “Find the Cure” in support of breast cancer awareness.

In July 2016, in honor of five police officer murdered in cold blood, the Dallas Cowboys wanted to honor the slain officers with a small helmet decal. The NFL put a stop to it.

In 2015, NFL player William Gay was fined for wearing purple cleats meant to raise awareness for domestic abuse.

You should read the update in the link that you posted.

UPDATE: Snopes.com claims that this rule does not, in fact, exist. The article cites the rule quoted above and reports "No such wording appears in the 2017 version of the Official Playing Rules of the National Football League."
Yet the NFL's Game Operations Manual -- the 200-plus book the league refers to as its "bible" -- is different than its rulebook. It is not available to the public. The rule cited above comes from the league itself, via the Washington Post.
The Post reported Sunday that the NFL confirmed the rule's existence but emphasized their ability to enforce it selectively:
Under the league rule, the failure to be on the field for the anthem may result in discipline such as a fine, suspension or loss of a draft pick. But a league official said the key phrase is “may” result, adding he won’t speculate on whether the Steelers would be disciplined.
The specific rule pertaining to the national anthem is found on pages A62-63 of the league’s game operations manual, according to a league source.

UPDATE TWO: After Grabien contacted Snopes.com, bringing the above facts to their attention, the author amended his article, confirming the existence of the above-state rule, and changed their description of this story from "false" to "mixture."

So it's not even clear that this is an enforceable rule. Regardless this is a fight that the NFL won't win and shouldn't bother to try to.

Besides Trump has already contradicted himself on the issue of the protest. He's just a senile doddy old racist that can't seem to keep his thoughts consistent.

Read on Twitter

[Pointgod]

but both of those quotes you just used out of context, and literally changed the wording, which is dishonest. The exact thing you criticize Trump for being.

America isn't divided because of one person, it's divided because everyone wants to twist things to support their close minded narrative instead of having perspective

I stand corrected on the Charlottesville quote. He said that there were "some very fine people" marching on both sides in Charlottesville. (Although I find it hard to believe that "very fine people" would be marching with white nationalists.)

The SOB quote is accurate.

The SOB quote is not accurate, you, like everyone else, is attempting to frame it as a racist phrase, you literally changed the wording. you are being dishonest

He directed his comments about SOBs directly to black athletes, yet can't seem to direct any anger towards white supremacists. He had a well documented history of being a racist. Connect the dots it's really not hard.

[dckingsfan]

well you are touching on part of the reason i voted for Bernie. Bernie's altruistic platform was essentially a re-distibrution of wealth top to bottom which i clearly favor if you have been paying attention. If he had half a brain cell working, it should have been followed up with massive tax increases on the super wealthy (in an attempt) to pay for it; including retroactive taxes (estate, foundations, etc.)...almost full on socialism which I'm not opposed to as an ideology to instigate radical change. I think he had the will of the people behind him and enough political capital, given he didn't lose his ideological backbone once elected-something they all seem to do.

Balance is everything and while I found Bernie a breath air but he was also trying too much too quickly you are trying to take a "Luddite Society" politically into a totally reformed Social Democracy. While it might be "Utopian" it is unrealistic. All you have to do is look at the current Republican choice in Alabama..... Strange is regressive and Moore is a knuckles dragging Neanderthal. To think part of the American society can be dragged into the 20th Century little less the 21st is futile.

Let's stick to ideologies and not worry about which agent supports whatever given ideology and just stick to the ideology.

Ideally, I dont think we want the wealthy elite ruling class hoarding wealth and buying off politicians with that wealth so as to continue to influence legislation in a way that further enriches themeselves unless the vast and overwhelming majority of americans are simultaneously benefitting just as much? and even then we still dont want them hoarding too much of the wealth, correct? So I ask that question of the entire board. Who agrees with this basic premise that we dont want a wealthy elite ruling class at all and especially not to be able to easily pay off our politicians for favorable legislation?

I assume nearly everyone agrees with that except the few scant idiots that still think they are going to end up super wealthy and one of the elite ruling class?

So if we dont want that...how do we legally get our politician to write legislation to go after that wealth? And do so before they run off or paris, London, Dubai, Switzerland? Or better, get London, Paris, Germany, et al on board with us in a legal seizure of this wealth. How do we pull this off?

The arguments you made are - we don't want the wealthy to hoard wealth. From there you jumped to those that hoard wealth buy off politicians to further enrich themselves. Then you made the jump to we should separate the wealthy from their money and not let that money cross boarders easily.

Let's take an example that is easy to understand - since we are on a basketball board: Most that play basketball don't earn nearly as much as those the superstars. You are essentially advocating that we would pick a number, say $50M. As soon as a basketball player had accumulated $50M we would take the rest of his earnings and savings. Further, we wouldn't allow him to go to Europe and take his money with him to play, earn and accumulate more money.

So, although you have a simple argument - the argument is simple and unworkable in the context in which you have laid it out. I won't go through the numerous other flaws in your "argument". Instead, I would encourage you to think about your proposals in terms of the unintended consequences to those proposals.