General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTrump's statements about flag-burning: Clinton co-sponsored "Flag Protection Act" of 2005
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005...
The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag...It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000;
Perfect illustration of the FUBAR election 2016
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)Oneironaut
(5,504 posts)It's starting to feel that way again.
OKNancy
(41,832 posts)etc. She withdrew later
bigtree
(85,998 posts)...besides. the threat to citizenship is all Trump's. That's what should disturb folks, not something private citizen Clinton said or did in the past.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)to prohibit: (1) destroying or damaging a U.S. flag with the primary purpose and intent to incite or produce imminent violence or a breach of the peace
(2) intentionally threatening or intimidating any person, or group of persons, by burning a U.S. flag; or
(3) stealing or knowingly converting the use of a U.S. flag belonging to the United States, or belonging to another person on U.S. lands, and intentionally destroying or damaging that flag.
Hence, if the flag is yours, you're not attempting to incite a riot or intimidating anyone, it is fine under the act to burn a flag. I understand how easy it is to miss the glaringly obvious if it doesn't fit our narrative.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)1. Inciting violence by any means is already a crime, so the flag thing just adds another criminal charge. Same goes for stealing a flag, threatening someone etc.
2. This is typical pandering to patriotic fervor. Or perhaps it's just an attempt to deflect criticism about lack of patriotism.
3. Let's stop trying to cover for politicians we like. Yeah, they all have to do stupid stuff because that's the way the game is played. Why not just admit it?