jump to last post 1-4 of 4 discussions (36 posts)

Boycotting Trump's Inauguration - Childish or Principles

  1. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

    Our Presidential Inauguration event is symbolic of our Democratic process. In this case, the peaceful transfer of power. Even as an event that highlights Donald Trump as our new president, I do not think it is a celebration of the new president. It is a symbolic testament to the strength of our choice of government design.

    I think the boycotts are childish and churlish. I think those boycotting are just sore losers. Am I wrong? Am I missing something? Can the decision to boycott a symbol of one of our most significant democratic processes be defended,  just because the outcome is not what those boycotting wanted?

    GA

    1. Credence2 profile image83
      Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Not so fast, GA.

      There are many that are still disturbed with the way Trump manag d his campaign along with those groups that were demeaned in the process. The women will express their displeasure at his perceived sexism represented by the crotch grab, his record and related statements. They will have their say the day after the inaugural. You want to ignore decorum in how you conduct yourself, then you get to sleep in the bed that you made for yourself. And it ain't just let bygones be bygones, merely because he won the election by being appointed by the Electoral College.

      Both Scarecrow McConnell of the Senate and Rush Limbaugh expressed a sentiment of disdain for the newly elected President Obama, So, yes, you are wrong, there is more involved than just the 'outcome'.

      But Trump did managed to get someone beyond the Mormon Tarvernacle Choir to perform at his inaugural, 'Sam" from the RB duo Sam and Dave agreed to perform. Sam is over 81 and Dave has been dead almost 30 years The Duo's heyday was 50 years ago. His vocal chords are probably a bit rusty.

      This guy Trump must be 'hard up', and he is probably offering the guy a fortune, since Sam's royalty money has long run dry.

      As I have said, "It begins"

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Hello Credence2, (is Cred too familiar? I think we have a history that would allow it, but I don't want to be presumptuous), since you jumped right in on a new thread, I will give you a pass. You might not have taken a breath before diving in. The topic isn't about Trump, or all those things you find wrong with his election, it is about a symbol of our governmental structure - the peaceful transfer of power.

        If all of your points of anti-Trump criticism are to be taken, then the only assumption to be made is that you agree with our form of democracy only as long as its outcome suits you. Is that an accurate description?

        Look at the politics of your response - all the reasons you are anti-Trump, but I don't see any that deal with the symbolism of the event. Or any that justify the boycott. Your response looks like it falls squarely in the sore losers camp. There will be plenty of opportunities, (I think the media will see to this), to condemn, or hold accountable,  Pres. Trump for specific reasons, but I don't think an Inauguration is one of them. Unless of course you now hold our democratic form of government in contempt.

        You declared that I am wrong, but your response [ADDED] -and your denigration of "Sam" [END ADDITION], seems to prove otherwise.

        GA

        1. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Hello Credence2, (is Cred too familiar? I think we have a history that would allow it, but I don't want to be presumptuous), since you jumped right in on a new thread, I will give you a pass. You might not have taken a breath before diving in. The topic isn't about Trump, or all those things you find wrong with his election, it is about a symbol of our governmental structure - the peaceful transfer of power.


          1. GA, "Cred" is fine and you're allowed.

          2. My impression based on the title is that we were speaking about the circumstances surrounding the upcoming inauguration rather than a general principle.

          3. It irritates me that NOW the Right and conservatives talk about 'principles and taking the 'high road'. The most partisan, obstructive and contentious period between the political parties since the Civil War has been over the last8 years Of Obama's term. So, if you find less than a cooperative attitude from the Left, why would I be surprised? So, I will tell the rightwinger what I tell anybody else, 'you will reap what you have sown"
          Since why do we talk about principles when the behavior associated with them are applicable only when it is to your political advantage? Under those circumstances, we are no longer speaking of 'principles'.


          "If all of your points of anti-Trump criticism are to be taken, then the only assumption to be made is that you agree with our form of democracy only as long as its outcome suits you. Is that an accurate description?"

          No, Trump is President and has won under the current set of Constitutional guidance in place. I have a great deal of criticism reserved for Trump, but the claim of his not being legitimate is not one of them. The wounds that he opened among so many during his campaign that were unnecessary are not simply forgotten now that he has attained to the brass ring. He has said in so many ways, that the support from certain groups is not respected. But he has the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Bible and a few polite well wishers, so there is no requirement for those that were disaffected or represent the disaffected to show up. So, he is becoming President under our form of democracy and that is fine, am I not working with the 'System'?

          "Look at the politics of your response - all the reasons you are anti-Trump, but I don't see any that deal with the symbolism of the event. Or any that justify the boycott. Your response looks like it falls squarely in the sore losers camp. There will be plenty of opportunities, (I think the media will see to this), to condemn, or hold accountable,  Pres. Trump for specific reasons, but I don't think an Inauguration is one of them. Unless of course you now hold our democratic form of government in contempt."

          I would'nt attend the inauguration if say David Duke was being inaugurated. But, I say, let the show go on, regardless. As for the media putting Trump on the eternal hot seat, I am counting on that in addition to the tepid support he receives for his coronation right now, to send a message to those that will listen as to the contention Trump is to face into the future.  I hold our Democratic form of government to the same levels of esteem as that of the Right and GOP in its fine example over the last 8 years.

          You declared that I am wrong, but your response [ADDED] -and your denigration of "Sam" [END ADDITION], seems to prove otherwise.

          Sam is ok and just trying to make a few bucks, after all this time. That is natural, it just interesting that so many current performers would not be seen with Trump. This, too, is a also a first in modern times and just another indicator, however slight.

          GA

          1. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Hey bud, er.. Cred,

            You are on a roll - wrong again! ;-)  Your impression of the title that is. Clearly the title asked whether a decision to boycott was a childish or principled act. Also clearly, the reasons for making that choice are the determinant.

            As I am sure is obvious, I think the decision to "boycott" is childish, and perhaps even a bit insulting to us folks that believe in our government framework. But that is just an opinion.

            I think that someone quietly not attending might find some space to stake a principled position - maybe, but to do so loudly and publicly, and to advocate a boycott, just comes off as a sore loser to me. I haven't lost faith though - at least you don't seem to be in the boycott camp, even if you would not attend.

            I would go on to address your point 3., and the rest of your comment, but I don't want to be seen agreeing with you, even partially, too often. Folks might get the wrong idea.

            GA

      2. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        "You want to ignore decorum in how you conduct yourself, then you get to sleep in the bed that you made for yourself."

        You are correct.  May I add that those giving the greatest possible, highly calculated, offensive insult will also sleep in the bed they make.

        As a gesture of bi-partisanship, as an effort to unite the country, as an indication of true leadership - as all of these things it is a dismal failure.  As GA said, it is no more than a temper tantrum of a child that can't have what it wants.

        1. GA Anderson profile image85
          GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Hello Wilderness, I wish I had thought of that "dismal failure" description. It fits with  the other thread I started about the Left and Right changing seats in the peanut gallery.

          GA

        2. Credence2 profile image83
          Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Wilderness, have a look at the reply that I provided GA in regards to the 'sour grapes' argument.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            "She was mean to me and it's not fair!  I want to be mean to her!  Waaahhh!"  And the heels drum on the floor yet again.

            Children on the Hill, unable to mature enough to do their job or even behave themselves.  And children in the audience, applauding and encouraging the childish behavior.

            1. Credence2 profile image83
              Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

              It appears that those designated as 'children' can be defined as coming from either ideological and political perspective. I say that there were plenty of little rightwing children during the Obama administration. What about them?

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                You define it that way if it pleases you to make up excuses for poor behavior.  I'll stick to childish; an accurate description of that same behavior.

                What about them (rightwing children)?  They were mean so I want to be mean, too?  That's what I said, isn't it, and it matters not which political party they come from.  They are still pitiful representatives of adulthood and do not present anything I would wish to follow, applaud or support.

                I haven't forgotten the very first time I ran into the birth certificate nonsense and my thought was "How foolish!  Do they think that has not been thoroughly checked, by the GOP if no one else?"  Temper tantrums, false accusations and just plain mud are acceptable to some folks, but I'm not one of them and I don't care in the slightest which part is doing it.  Nor is it an excuse to do it again, IMHO.  You may differ, expressing the thought that bad behavior is a solid reason for more of the same.

                1. Credence2 profile image83
                  Credence2posted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  That is fine as long as your description of childish apply to this behavior universally. As long as you know that themud is not just coming from one side.

                  We understand each other, then

                  If it wasn't done over the last eight years, perhaps it would not be happening now. If more of the Right took note and brought their childish behavior into check....

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    You're right - if it hadn't been done for the past 8 years (birthers are a good example) it might not be happening now.  Of course, children don't really need an excuse for a good old fashioned tantrum - simply not getting their way is often enough.  As it is here - those idiots aren't doing it because of past excesses, they are doing it because they didn't get their way.

                    But it sure feels good to put the blame for our heroes bad behavior onto the enemy, doesn't it?  Even though it emphasizes the childishness of the action, it still feels good.

    2. dianetrotter profile image81
      dianetrotterposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I don't think the excuse that he didn't win legitimately is a good enough excuse not to go.

      An expanded, articulate reason to not go would be his conduct and behavior.
      1.  His tweeting is rude, offensive, combative and unprofessional.
      2.  He refuses to respect those whom he wants to respect him.
      3.  He has dangerous views that are not supported by his party or even the people he nominated.
      4.  He is vulnerable to Russia's attempt to manipulate the United States.  The golden shower thing may be a lie but is not hard to believe about someone who grabs ladies in the pwzzy.
      5.  Obamacare is going to be veeeery interesting to watch play out.

      I could go on but there is no use.

      Any one of the first four is a good enough reason to not go.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        But, but, Dianne, listen Diane, you are following in Cred's footsteps.

        The point is not about Trump!  And all your reasons were!

        Are you too in the camp that our democratic process is fine as long as it agrees with what you think?

        The Inauguration is a process, not a celebration of a victor. Why  must you see it as a Trump celebration?

        The Inauguration is not a celebration of Trump, it is a celebration of our form of government!  But that doesn't seem to be your perspective. It appears you like the game of democracy as long as it fits your perspective. When it doesn't, you don't want to play. Too bad, so sad, but yours are sour grapes. How else can you defend your position except to say you don't like who won?

        It appears you are just one more of Democracy's fair weather friends.

        And lastly, the "golden Shower" thing. Holy Cow! What an uninformed thing to say. First, it is not true, the 'alleged' rational was that the prostitutes were pissing on a bed Obama had slept in, (allegedly Trump was in the same room Pres. Obama occupied on a previous visit, and the prostitutes were pissing on that - and even that version is just a bunch of bull, but you bought into the spun version of a Trump "Golden Shower" perversion - shame on you), not a sexual ritual - as you think.

        And lastly, (again), none of your four reasons are valid to me. I live two hours away from DC, and I definitely will be going. As I did for Bush and Obama's inaugurations. Not because of the participants, but because I believe in a celebration of our democracy.

        GA

        1. dianetrotter profile image81
          dianetrotterposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          I wouldn't get on the golden shower thing.  Then again, I wouldn't have believed grabbing ladies in the cat had I not heard it.

          Democracy is the best form of government but it is not perfect.  The good thing is that we have a Constitution which says in Article I:  You do not have to attend a ceremony that will make you throw up.

          1. ahorseback profile image47
            ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Childish or principled ? Simple -  Forgot to add hypocritical and shallow !

            1. dianetrotter profile image81
              dianetrotterposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              It was suppose to be half humorous and sarcastic.  Being so entrenched in any position that you cannot be open to other possibilities is dangerous.

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              OMG! There it is again - "shallow." May I offer some synonyms you might try for variety? Or at least let me suggest a magnifying mirror.

              GA

    3. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Refusing to celebrate someone who is widely known to be racist and sexist is not being a "sore loser", it's called having principles.

      Trump becoming president doesn't suddenly change the fact that he is racist and sexist. It just means a racist, sexist will now be president.

      For anyone who doesn't think that's something to celebrate, not attending is a perfectly appropriate response.

      1. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Hello Don,

        I bet neither of us are surprised that we have different perspectives. I do not see the Inauguration as a celebration of Trump. If I did, I might not attend either.

        My thoughts are that the Inauguration is a celebration of our Constitution, and the government design it created. Don't you think that a nation that has held to the principal of a peaceful transfer of power, through good times and bad, is something to be proud of?

        If Trump is as bad as you say, and as dangerous to our nation's prosperity as you infer, and with the backing of a majority of the citizens, wouldn't this be the 'Perfect Storm' that might accommodate a disruption of that peaceful transfer by Pres. Obama? Yet that didn't happen, our nation's principles still hold. Isn't that something to celebrate every time it happens?

        I think so, and I still think folks that make a public issue of their boycott, especially our Congress members, are behaving as childish sore losers.

        GA

        1. Don W profile image83
          Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Exercising the right to dissent is just as much a celebration of the Constitution.

          Even more so, if someone believes the views expressed by the person being inaugurated are antithetical to the ideals enshrined in that Constitution.

          For those people, their absence at the inauguration is not an attack on the Constitution, but the beginning of a determined defense of it, from a man they believe threatens its ideals.

          I can't think of a more peaceful way of expressing that, than through silence and absence.

          You're right though, it is a celebration. I celebrate the existence of people's freedom to dissent by not attending the event, and your freedom to call them "sore losers" because of it. Such freedom is a wonderful thing. Let's hope it lasts.

          1. dianetrotter profile image81
            dianetrotterposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Thumbs up!

          2. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Hello again Don,

            It seems we still disagree about what is being celebrated. Since it is a matter of opinion, not fact, that is at issue, both of us can be equally sure the other is wrong.

            I feel strongly that the recent issue in The Gambias, (as noted above in this thread), supports my perspective. I also feel that the presence and actions of the peaceful, yet very visual and vocal protesters along the parade route, (not the violent rioters a few blocks away), bolster my perspective. Boycotting the Inauguration is not a legitimate, (in my opinion), protest against Pres. Trump. If you are right, then the Clinton's must be less principled than those that boycotted it. Did they toss their principles to the wind?

            I do strongly agree with you that the right of peaceful protest, whatever the reason, (well, there may be some qualifications),  is an equally important part of our Constitutional rights. I just don't agree that boycotting the Inauguration is a legitimate expression of protest. Obviously I think it is a sore loser's childish response. I do think those parade route protesters were legitimate protesters. I respect their effort even though I disagree with them.

            ps. I want to use this opportunity to 'brag' that my wife and I did attend the Inauguration, but I will start another thread for it. I hope you take a look.

            GA

            1. Don W profile image83
              Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              My goal is not agreement. I'm expressing an opinion. That's all.

              People do not have to attend the inauguration. Unlike North Korea, people can't be lined up and shot for not paying respects to the "dear leader". People have a choice. That's what freedom is about.

              The situation in the Gambia is in no way equivalent to people simply choosing not to attend today's event. That comparison is more than a stretch.

              Whatever people's reasons for not attending, their choice in how they show support for the Constitution is no less "legitimate" than yours. They are just different choices.

              The Clinton's have the same right to choose as anyone else, but people are not bound to follow the choice the Clinton's made, just as you are not bound to follow the choice someone else made.

              If you think the response is childish, you're entitled to say so. Just as those who didn't attend, are entitled to express the opinion that electing a racist, sexist, emotionally immature president is a bad day for the country. Time will tell how accurate that opinion is.

              1. GA Anderson profile image85
                GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Well damn, just when I thought we were going to the campfire together.

                Of course folks don't have to attend. I don't think that was implied anywhere in our conversation. I have been talking about choices, haven't you?

                I find it it almost disingenuous to say that an illustrative instance, (The Gambias), where a subversion of a constitutionally mandated transfer of power is not relevant to a discussion of our own "peaceful transfer of power" process. The Gambias "Inauguration" wasn't a celebration of the winner, it was a constitutional process, just as ours is.

                Can you show me where the processes differ?

                Of course the Clinton's had a choice. Do you think they were there for Trump, or for the process?

                And no, relative to our discussion, time will not tell. The Inauguration is not a coronation or validation of Trump, (or any other president), no matter how much you insist it is. It is a constitutional process, and the boycotting of that is what you are trying to justify with your condemnation of Trump.

                GA

                1. Don W profile image83
                  Don Wposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Not sure about going to the campfire together, but the other thread you posted about your visit to the inauguration did give me more understanding of your perspective than your comparison with the situation in Gambia.

                  With that new found insight let me say that this isn't about showing support for the constitution vs. not showing support. In the same way you believe attending the event is not about showing acceptance of the individual, but about celebrating an ideal. Others believe refusal to attend is not about showing rejection of the ideal, but commiserating the choice of the individual.

                  I don't see either view as more or less legitimate than the other, mainly because, for me, the strength of a Constitutional ideal is independent from the pomp and circumstance of any ceremony that celebrates it.

                  So for me, someone refusing to attend the inauguration ceremony is not the same as them turning their back on the ideal of peaceful transition of power. In your case you seem to be melding the ceremony with the ideal, and treating rejection of the former as also a rejection of the latter.

                  The only example I can think of where non attendance at the ceremony could be categorically seen as a rejection of the ideal, is if the absence was due to someone planning an actual armed insurrection (as distinct from a noisy or even violent protest) to wrestle power away from the incoming president. Obviously in that case their absence would definitely be based on a rejection of the peaceful transition of power.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image85
                    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Hello again Don,

                    I think I need to offer a bit of clarification, because I don't totally disagree with your comment.

                    I have tried to repeatedly use the description "boycott" and to qualify those I was speaking of as those that make the issue public and loud.

                    To me, if someone does not want to attend because they see it as a validation, then so be it. I think they are wrong, but those aren't the folks I am criticizing as "childish." That would be a right of choice I support.

                    It is the ones that are publicly, (and pointedly), declaring they are "boycotting" the Inauguration, that I am castigating. And those that are members of Congress are at the top of that list.

                    I can see that it might look like I am splitting hairs or playing semantics, but I do see a difference. Those I speak of are politicizing their choice. And I see that as childish and churlish, (ain't that a cute word).

                    GA

    4. gmwilliams profile image83
      gmwilliamsposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      Totally agree.  Trump is the President, like it or not.  Just respect the man & the office.

    5. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I agree with your observation. The peaceful transfer of power is one of the Hallmarks of our democracy. Even when you vehemently disagree with the president elect the process is at the heart of the event. There will be much time to protest and oppose the policies Trump comes up with in the coming years but now is a time to celebrate one of the most successful governments in recent history. It could be something like the condition in Zambia where the President refuses to step down.

      https://www.qfmzambia.com/2017/01/19/ga … ne-passes/

  2. PhoenixV profile image79
    PhoenixVposted 2 months ago

    I think its the best use of the salaries they are paid if they are not on the premises. In fact I wish they all could be paid off and sent home. We need some private sector in there to undo and clean up their mess for last 30 40 years. And not just the ones boycotting, but they would be a good start.

  3. Alphadogg16 profile image89
    Alphadogg16posted 2 months ago

    It is pretty silly, both parties resort to childish tactics when things are not in their particular favor. The major issues of our country are never going to be resolved regardless of who's president if the two parties do not grow up and work together on the best interests of this nation first and not everyone else around the world.

    1. ahorseback profile image47
      ahorsebackposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      The only correction to your statement is that  liberals are generally the monkey wrench in the gears of most political progress.  Conservatives do not generally protest the  will of the majority , they don't generally take to the streets ,  they do not disrupt the traffic ,outshout their opponents ,  work to shut down the metro's, turn over cars  and burn police cruisers,  by "protesting" . It is well known to those who've been around awhile that the universal agenda of left is in the disruption by protest .

      In this inauguration , It is time for the left to mature up !

  4. GA Anderson profile image85
    GA Andersonposted 2 months ago

    A recent news event seems to be relevant to this discussion:

    Gambia President Refuses to Step Down After Election

    "Adama Barrow, the man who won The Gambia's disputed election, has been sworn in as president.
    He took the oath at the country's embassy in Senegal, ordering Gambian soldiers to remain in their barracks. He has been recognised internationally. But strongman Yahya Jammeh has refused to quit and is backed by parliament.
    ......
    Mr Jammeh lost the 1 December poll, according to the Gambian electoral commission. But he wants the results annulled, citing errors in the electoral process."


    So much for a peaceful transfer of power.

    It is what the Inauguration means that we celebrate - not the man.

    GA

    1. dianetrotter profile image81
      dianetrotterposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      This is fascinating.  I heard about it last night.  It seems the US is expected to weigh in on this.

 
working