This story is unavailable.

Words matter, especially coming from the soon to be POTUS. He attacks a private citizen on Twitter, death threats follow. He says something about Boeing or Lockheed, stocks drop. He throws a temper tantrum about Hamilton, his cult members scream boycott. He says he wants to strip citizenship from flag burners, his authoritarian followers send messages of support. You are presenting an unoriginal rebuttal in an attempt to defend Trump. I also don’t subscribe to the notion that he behaves like this on purpose as a form of misdirection, as that would require acknowledging that he possess a level of intelligence that he almost certainly does not.

I made my view clear regarding the potential implementation of such a policy as espoused by Trump.

“…whether or not Trump would ever be capable of anything like this in no way softens his constant flirtation with some form of new, modern fascism he would impose on the country if given a chance.”

Trump would undoubtedly impose his will upon the nation with total disregard for checks and balances or constitutional constraints if able. This is a reasonable conclusion based on Trump’s behavior and statements over the course of a year and a half.

Also, you are factually wrong regarding the likelihood of a flag burning measure passing the legislator. The flag desecration bill sponsored by Clinton in 2005 was only defeated in the Senate by one vote-hardly the “zero” chance you claim of any future bill passing. And, with the new wave of nationalism sweeping the country, there is no reason to assume another bill like this may not be capable of passing the House and Senate, especially considering many Democrats support such a measure.

Also, as you are fully aware, the makeup of the Supreme Court will be changing in the coming years. The SCOTUS decision in 1989 that ruled flag burning as protected speech was 5–4. To assume every potential justice that may be appointed to the court, especially under Trump, will view flag burning as a protected act is foolish. This case could very well be revisited, just as Roe v. Wade most likely will.

If you agree with every fear I stated (as you mention in the first line), don’t you think speaking against this dangerous authoritarian would be more useful than attempting to dismiss his tyrannical statements as harmless? Again, words matter when they come from the POTUS, or soon to be POTUS.