I know that it is a Constitutionally protected right to burn the Flag and in my head I would never support changing this. It is a slippery slope to go there. With that said as a Vet and a VERY patriotic person it stirs my heart to hear that Trump feels this way. I can want to do something and still restrain myself from doing it.

Such flag burning is indeed protected by the First Amendment, though I laughed at that flag-burning Trump protestor who set himself on fire on TV.

I agree with ending the war on drugs. But, that is not part of this discussion.

Yes, Dino, I heard the same thing. I kind of got the idea that Rush was saying that every time there is a flag burning incident, a lot of people in the country will be angry and remember what Trump said, which would basically mean more support for Trump even though there is not much that Trump can do or will do about flag burners. BTW, in 2006 the Hilldebeast said much the same thing that Trump is saying.

I like the idea that immigrants should add to our country, not feed off it

Agreed

Maybe the third status would be a limited duration visa with a price tag. Anyone here would be protected by our constitution and paid for by the visa fee. Might work

Just noise. Irrelevant. Won't happen.

...and it should be legal!

IMO, Pre.-Elect Trump likes to use these "throw away" lines to tweak the left (I would add in the media, but that would be redundant).

Why not discuss all of them? I do.
Secondly, it is not without precedent, nor something Trump himself has not already suggested, that something that is currently decided by the states raises to the level of federal jurisdiction through the actions of a zealous politician.

IMO the most pressing issue is the war on drugs. It is by far the most expensive and expansive problem with our government today.

I will say the famous question by Rand: So what? Even if true, this is so far "down the list" of important issues that I don't want to spend any time on it. Plus, it is not a federal issue, it is a state-by-state issue. And to make the law "more like" UK is not make it the same. Even the UK modified its law on this in 2013 because it was so ill-conceived. Why not discuss issues closer to the top of list?

This is the second time you've said "I have not heard" when a single Google search could have found the exact instance for you.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/24/media...

As to this article's interpretation of the law, I will not stand by it. But Trump has said that he wants our US laws to be more like the UK's. That is a fact. He wants it because it is easier to sue a reporter/newspaper there.

In my search of the internet, however, I have found that the general consensus is that in the UK all you have to prove are damages and that a statement was made. In the US, you have to prove that a statement was made, that there were damages, and that the statement made was untrue, maliciously made, knowingly untrue (a lie), or some combination of the above. Basically, in the UK if you say something true and it harms someone's reputation in some tangible dollar amount, you can be successfully sued for defamaiton.

I believe you are incorrect as to the law. As to Trump, I have not hear him expound about UK libel law. I am a retired lawyer who held law licenses in the UK and two US states (libel law varies by state) but did not handle libel cases. Generally, in the US, if you make true statements for malicious purposes you can be successfully sued. The press, though gets an extra "pass" on this and, my understanding, is this is what Trump wants to end. The UK does not, to my knowledge, require a defendant to prove a negative and the burden of proof lies upon the plaintiff.

"There IS one existential threat to America - the National Debt."

Agree.

My time is more limited

Plus +1

1) Fine. But it was only brought up because Trump tweeted something dumb. Again.

2) Absolutely not the case. He wants libel and slander laws to be like in the UK where the party who needs to "prove" their case in a lawsuit is not the person bringing the lawsuit, but the person defending.
Example: I claim that Trump is an authoritarian.
US:
Trump sues me. He must prove that such claims are false. If he cannot, then I lose and pay him damages.
UK:
Trump sues me. He does not need to prove such claims are false, and even if I prove they are true as long as he can prove that he lost money, as a result I must pay him money. It essentially prevents people from telling the truth if it might harm someone.

Another way I have heard it put is that in the US, the tortfeasor must prove a claim to be true (that someone is lying about them). In the UK, the defendant must prove it false.

Considering the source, CNN, I have my block of salt with which I will take this.

What I said was I thought the burning flag issue was a snowflake issue, not the person bringing it up. To me it is simply another press tactic to point attention some other place and attack Trump about something that, in law, is a non-issue.

The press now has a special exemption and that exemption should be removed so they cannot report as fact what is only their imagination is. Anyone, other than the press, would be successfully sued under existing law. Trump, as I understand it, only wants to remove their Special Interest exemption.

I have enough time to discuss this. It is not preventing me from discussing others. Now, if this goes on for weeks and is all anyone talks about, then fine. We should start thinking of moving on. But in this moment it is important to point out when a president-elect is showing not only ignorance but outright contempt for our government's founding documents.

Well, then I think your use of it, in this case, was inappropriate. Who was being overly sensitive? Was anyone ignoring a valid topic of conversation that you or someone else brought up because of this?
I can surely imagine that there are a few examples of this, but they are not the majority in this case.
And this is not a minor issue, it reveals a complete lack of understanding of what the first amendment actually means, especially when you take into account his view of journalists and how we should change libel and slander laws to make it easier to sue others.

The I use the term snowflake as an overly sensitive person, incapable of dealing with any opinions that differ from their own and/or get fixated on a single issue to the exclusion of more important issues.

If the flag (or Bible) is my property, and the conditions are otherwise safe, I can legally burn the flag. If the flag belongs to somebody else or the conditions are unsafe (as in a dry grass field, for example), then I cannot burn the flag or Bible and to do so is illegal. SCOTUS, no matter who is eventually appointed, and certainly none of the 21 Trump named, will not change this. But, assume SCOTUS does, what is the worst-case scenario? Will you have to stop burning all those flags you bought? My point is time, the only truly non-renewable resource, is better spent on more serious issues.

Your suggestion is not possible and not really a great one either, so I think its time to drop the "no citizenship from birth" issue. Not only is it harmful to human beings, it will have no positive impact. It is both practically flawed and philosophically bankrupt.

I'm not sure what you meant by "snowflake issue" so I assumed you meant it was millennials whining about not being treated like precious unique little snowflakes. If you meant something different, then I apologize for misunderstanding. I just hadn't heard that exact phrase before.