I carry on uber-meaningful dialogues with conservatives. Some of them are my biggest fans. So it was today that two of them and I engaged in our friendly horn-locking over the latest outrage Mr. Trump has perpetrated because no one will take away that damned Android.
Dan, a veteran and a Gulf of Mexico oil supervisor from Florida, believes I'm wrong when I say, in response to this unlikely crisis, click here
"Trump cannot survive this. Athletes are more plainly American heroes than our soldiers, there's more press about them. America would rather see its troops threatened than its pro athletes," though this protest does not look to get anybody killed or robbed.
"I think that you're wrong on this," Dan opined. "FB is blowing up with people boycotting the NFL. Ratings are down, attendance is down. The NFL is going to have to earn their keep as entertainers."
I'll swear by one thing: what Trump has said and the way he's said it-- apart from the core first-amendment issue-- is going to have unintended consequences for him. And he's done this with no one really to receive counsel from about how to proceed-- you know he blindsided his whole staff with the "son of a b*tch" statement, Dan.
He's never been one to consider consequences.
As I have said elsewhere, we may respect, and when necessary, mourn-- some of us do, anyway-- the most honorable among us, but we idolize our entertainers, and sports pros are the largest single group of entertainers. They command the greatest access to the public.
They may be instrumental in convincing such a significant number of people that they screwed up by voting for him that the clamor for his removal may become too loud for the GOP to ignore.
I've been friends with both Bill and Dan since back n the Bush Administration. Bill is a reluctantly retired Jewish schoolteacher from Chicago.
Bill has always been good at asking questions that stimulate dialogue. He came through once again, striking to the political heart of the matter:
"What is the core First Amendment issue?"
Glad you asked, Bill, though I thought it was apparent, or I would have explained it.
The issue is whether a politician can use the bully pulpit, or even the letter of the law (if one should try that) to in some way tend to criminalize the class of acts that fall under the definition of dissenting self-expression, short of the suborning of violence against others.
Only a lawsuit against dissenting players, or some dissenting player or executive-- remember, the execs are linking with the players-- by some party, whether the federal government or a private third party would force a Court opinion on the First Amendment issue in the case of behavior/statements like the president has uttered.