Some Republicans vote against anti-bigotry resolution.

[*bfine32*]

(04-17-2019, 05:33 PM)Benton Wrote: Boycott, sure. Ban, no. 

You're position is baffling. You were in favor of the POTUS being able to ban reporters and prevent them from doing their job, but you're against a free market approach of letting readership dictate what's acceptable.

And I'm not sure how you don't understand the "different point." You referred to "public media." That publication is privately held. That's a completely different topic than 'boycott versus ban.' As I don't see the need to keep going over 'boycott versus ban,' I'm not going to. Let's face it, AOC said boycott, so there's not going to be much wiggle room with you. Boycott is now a bad thing. 

Seems you're trying to make a "different point." and you bafflement aside; you'd have to show me where I supported POTUS preventing any news agency from doing their job. I have 0 issue with an administration banning any individual they felt were violating the privileges associated with his/her press pass. 

Forgive me; I meant media made available to the public; as opposed to confidential, ect... information. 

To be honest I'd probably better support a publicly elected official calling for boycotting a publicly owned entity. I have conceded that boycott is the correct term a long time ago, but only one of us keeps referring to ban' in some attempt "to educate" on a point that has been conceded. 

And yes, but it's not a "now" thing for me. I'm not sure I've ever been in favor of public officials advocating the boycotting of a business. 

Are you in favor of Trump calling for boycotting the NFL if players continue to disrespect the flag? I'm not; I feel it's up to the private citizen to urge for boycott and the elected official to simply give their views on the matter.