President Donald Trump

[Sour Masher]

MLB umpire Rob Drake, a full-time ump since 2010, tweeted out that if Trump got impeached he would “grab his AR-15 and start a CIVAL WAR (sic).” Naturally, Repubs on social media came to his defense immediately, [wrongly] saying he can’t be punished by MLB because of Freedom of Speech. I wonder if they said the same about Colin Kaepernick? Hmmmm.

How can so many who claim the constitution as a sacred document know so little about it? I guess it makes sense that the look up to Trump, who also knows so little of the constitution.

[Ken]

MLB umpire Rob Drake, a full-time ump since 2010, tweeted out that if Trump got impeached he would “grab his AR-15 and start a CIVAL WAR (sic).” Naturally, Repubs on social media came to his defense immediately, [wrongly] saying he can’t be punished by MLB because of Freedom of Speech. I wonder if they said the same about Colin Kaepernick? Hmmmm.

Forget Kaepernick, shouts of fire in a crowded theater, which this fits to a T, isn't protected by freedom of speech.

Also, if you can't spell civil war, it's probably best not to start one. Get a brain MORANS.

[Kevin Seitzer]

Forget Kaepernick, shouts of fire in a crowded theater, which this fits to a T, isn't protected by freedom of speech.

Also, if you can't spell civil war, it's probably best not to start one. Get a brain MORANS.

[revo]

How can an ump, whose main job is to be objective, be a very vocal supporter of a "politician" who is known for being against minorities and immigrants? Is it possible he was biased, even slightly, against say, Cuban defectors? Or Latinos, who he may think don't belong here and are stealing jobs in baseball? Or African-Americans, who in other sports have knelt for the national anthem? Or maybe he gave better calls to known conservatives, of which I'm sure there are many in MLB?

It's one thing to be a supporter of Trump, as long as you keep your mouth shut. But when you're vocally calling for a "CIVAL WAR" and other antics, I'm sorry, his job has to be on the line here (besides for the obvious).

[Ken]

Calling for gun violence via social media is something that should get you fired from any job. I don't see how this guy can keep his job. He should not.

That said, I don't think it is correct to call every Trump supporter a racist, just by definition. I don't think the fact that someone is vocal about their support means they are racist. And it would be dangerous to go down the path of "maybe he gave better calls to known conservatives", as the reverse could be true as well with a vocal supporter on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a political opinion, even if it differs dramatically from mine. And they have every right to voice that opinion. However, there's a lot wrong with someone inciting gun violence and calling for civil war.

[nots]

Calling for gun violence via social media is something that should get you fired from any job. I don't see how this guy can keep his job. He should not.

That said, I don't think it is correct to call every Trump supporter a racist, just by definition. I don't think the fact that someone is vocal about their support means they are racist. And it would be dangerous to go down the path of "maybe he gave better calls to known conservatives", as the reverse could be true as well with a vocal supporter on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a political opinion, even if it differs dramatically from mine. And they have every right to voice that opinion. However, there's a lot wrong with someone inciting gun violence and calling for civil war.

Well said. Guy should be fired but a political litmus test to umpire is beyond dumb.

[Sour Masher]

Calling for gun violence via social media is something that should get you fired from any job. I don't see how this guy can keep his job. He should not.

That said, I don't think it is correct to call every Trump supporter a racist, just by definition. I don't think the fact that someone is vocal about their support means they are racist. And it would be dangerous to go down the path of "maybe he gave better calls to known conservatives", as the reverse could be true as well with a vocal supporter on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a political opinion, even if it differs dramatically from mine. And they have every right to voice that opinion. However, there's a lot wrong with someone inciting gun violence and calling for civil war.

I agree. The thing that should get him fired is the implication of violence, even though I'd bet he is one of the internet tough guys nots referred to, and isn't likely to start some stuff. But he still posted that and you can't do that. What an idiotic thing for him to write.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Calling for gun violence via social media is something that should get you fired from any job. I don't see how this guy can keep his job. He should not.

That said, I don't think it is correct to call every Trump supporter a racist, just by definition. I don't think the fact that someone is vocal about their support means they are racist. And it would be dangerous to go down the path of "maybe he gave better calls to known conservatives", as the reverse could be true as well with a vocal supporter on the other side.

There is nothing wrong with anyone having a political opinion, even if it differs dramatically from mine. And they have every right to voice that opinion. However, there's a lot wrong with someone inciting gun violence and calling for civil war.

Serious question here.

If you support a racist, someone who defends racists and/or incites and encourages racists aren't you in some way--advocating, empowering or at the very least tolerating racists/racism?

[Ken]

If you support a racist, someone who defends racists and/or incites and encourages racists aren't you in some way--advocating, empowering or at the very least tolerating racists/racism?

You and I see that he's a racist, and it seems obvious to us, but his supporters (at least some portion of them) do not necessarily agree. So by supporting him, from their perspective, they aren't supporting racism.

For me it's the difference between being wrong and just being ignorant. They are vastly different in their implication.

It's similar to the 2020 thread where there's discussion of Warren voting for defense spending increases - so can we say all Warren supporters are in support of spending more money on the military? That's a hard connection to make.

Granted, the Trump example is more blatant, but hopefully the comparison is still viable.



Separately, it's dangerous to look at every attribute of a candidate and suggest that all of their supporters support every aspect of their policy and character. I don't know of anyone I agree with 100%. So when I get behind a particular candidate for the 2020 election I can't imagine being labelled as a supporter of a specific policy just because I support a candidate who supports that policy. It's not transitive like that. Often we are forced to take the candidate MOST aligned with us, but it's odd to me to think that anyone would agree with 100% of a particular candidate. In fact that suggests an inability for that individual to think on their own, and just following the pack blindly.

Should racism be an automatic disqualifier for those supporters though? Yeah, absolutely. But again, I doubt the majority of his supporters think he's racist. They see him as "patriotic" instead.


Trump got 8% of the black vote and 29% of the Hispanic vote in the 2016 election. Are we saying those individuals are racists who hate minorities too? Seems far fetched. Can we label them as uninformed, and ignorant, sure -- but racist? As a general statement of that group of individuals? Seems unlikely.

[DMT]

[revo]

[Sour Masher]

Man, Trump really wishes he could kills lots of people. He has established many times that the understands and relishes the punishment for treason is death, and he loves accusing his enemies of treason. He says Obama committed treason for allegedly spying on his campaign.

[DMT]

Trump is going to continue to spew absurdities and bile, anything to try to change the news cycle. But thankfully he's no longer controlling the narrative.

[revo]

It what only can be called an “unshocking development,” a new book coming out today tells that the current inhabitant of the White House injected himself into the awarding of the Pentagon’s cloud computing contract, which went to Microsoft in an upset over Amazon Web Services, who already provides services to over 500 government divisions.

According to the book, Poor Baby Donny Wonny told Gen Mattis to screw them, probably because of Bezos’s Washington Post, which doesn’t give the Baby in Chief good press. Microsoft won the bid on Friday.

I wonder if Amazon can sue over this.

[revo]

Former Chief of Staff John Kelly said in an interview with the Washington Examiner that he warned Donald Trump from hiring a yes man as his replacement as it would lead to impeachment. Stephanie Grisham, Trump's Hanoi Hannah, actually replied with this remarkable nugget:

"I worked with John Kelly, and he was totally unequipped to handle the genius of our great President."