Is is appropriate to boycott the inauguration in protest of Trump?

1. 81

   Marcy Goodfleischposted 7 years ago

   Is is appropriate to boycott the inauguration in protest of Trump?
   
   Some politicians and leaders plan to boycott Trump's inauguration. Will that be good for the country, or will it be bad?

   replyreport
2. 83

   tamarawilhiteposted 7 years ago

   It is bad for the country but certainly legal.
   If Trump were truly a dictator type, you'd be afraid not to perform, not to attend. People who stopped clapping early for Stalin or failed to cry hard enough at Kim Jong Il's funeral were sent to death camps.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Isn't the inauguration about the country and not the person. So boycotting it is boycotting the country.

      replyreport
3. 50

   bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years ago

   
   
   If you boycott the inauguration then you are boycotting America, you might as well burn the constitution, and pledge your allegiance to some other country because you disrespecting America.
   
   If you do, then who are you, what do you represent, and what is that going to do to help bring United back to the DisUnited States of America
   
   What are the reasons for a boycott, what does the boycott change in January 21, 2017?
   For example, some say that Trump fixed the election and yet there is no real evidence. On the other hand do you really think that HRC ran a better race, or had a better platform than did Trump?
   He campaigned twice as much as she did, and her campaign was don't elect Trump as president. Trump did make specific goals and platforms. So who really put in the effort, and didn't tire during the campaign. Can you really say that HRC did more than Trump. How many people went to HRCs rallies compare to the filled audiences of Trump. Isn't that an indication that the polls weren't real.
   It was hard work and Trump had to battle HRC and his own party. He received lots of small donors, while HRC was bankrolled by the same people that bankrolled the Clinton foundation, quid pro quo. You notice that the Clinton foundation has dried up.
   
   It wasn't the wiki leaks on HRC emails, but their content that showed she and the DNC rigged the primary. And how ironic, that now they want to use their unclean hands and try to pin rigging an election on Trump.
   
   There is nothing good about the boycott, and it is bad as if continues civil unrest in the country. Riots and their destruction of property, and endangerment of lives is what they do in 3rd world countries,not here.
   
   It disrupts the new congress and the first hundred days of the Trump administration because it creates chaos and diverts the focus and puts a red herring on Trump.
   
   He has already done more before he is in the White House then president Barack Obama has done since the election.
   
   The problem is that the left never takes ownership of their failures, and they accuse the other side of doing what they do, but it is ok when they do it.
   
   They wanted Trump to commit and abide by the election results, now they are the ones that don't want to abide by it. The RNC didn't rig the election for Trump as the DNC did for HRC in the primary. Trump had over three times the opponents for the primary than HRC. even then, Bernie Sanders was too strong an for HRC.
   
   So what is the boycott for and what is its goal?

   replyreport
   1. 98

      watergeekposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      That's weird. Your description doesn't sound much like what I saw of the Trump campaign, except for the crowds. It sounds much more like the Sanders campaign to me, especially having plans and knowing what was behind the issues.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      watergeek
      I wrote a lot of words, and you didn't even answer my last sentence . What is the goal? I am sorry but I don't understand your comment?

      replyreport
4. 84

   krillcoposted 7 years ago

   “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
   
       ― Theodore Roosevelt

   replyreport
   1. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      And who is doing that? Seems to me there is more criticism by both sides of the aisle than ever and I don't know anyone saying there must be no criticism, do you? What is objectionable is the lying that is rampant among complainers.

      replyreport
   2. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      William, this goes way beyond criticism. Inciting riots is not just criticism because we know how violent they can turn. The left with their social reengineering are bringing the country down. They can't even wait until he is in office??

      replyreport
   3. 98

      watergeekposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Trump is one of the most divisive candidates I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot of them. Extremists on both the right and left have been violent, since the election. Meanwhile, the entire middle is trying to see where they can fit with integrity.

      replyreport
   4. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      William, what is your foundation for your comment? Start with Divisive and go on. lol BTW, boycotting the inauguration is boycotting America because it is not about the person but the Office. Isn't that true? The parties have always been divided.

      replyreport
5. 88

   blueheronposted 7 years ago

   I am not sure what you mean by "boycott Trump's inauguration." Not attending? Protesting?

   replyreport
   1. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Read the headlines and get back with me. I didn't create the term, that is what those people that are against Trump are calling for. You would have to ask them what they mean. Thanks

      replyreport
   2. 60

      Dont Taze Me Broposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Read the definition of boycott - it's both.

      replyreport
   3. 88

      blueheronposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      Here is the definition of the word "boycott": withdraw from commercial or social relations with (a country, organization, or person) as a punishment or protest.
      Why would there be a problem with anyone's intention to withdraw from the inauguration?

      replyreport
6. 98

   watergeekposted 7 years ago

   Who will know? Is someone taking roll? I think it's crucial for people to act with integrity, whoever they are. If they see the inauguration ceremony to be about the country and they see it as good for the country, then they should attend. If they see it as a celebration of the person elected, then they should attend if they're happy about it, but not if they feel angry or cheated. I know politicians and performers who refuse to attend. I would probably refuse, but luckily I don't have to make that decision for myself.
   
   Instead, I urge people to keep their eyes open and do their research, so they know what to support and what not to. And I praise California for taking a stand, while they can do so without flouting the expected upcoming, anti-progressive laws.

   replyreport
   1. 50

      bradmasterOCcalposted 7 years agoin reply to this

      I have to totally disagree with you, especially about California. Run by democrats and liberals for democrats and liberals. gov Jerry Brown, Barbara Boxer and Nancy Pelosi don't represent all the people in CA. Brown and Pelosi are Bekeley supporters.

      replyreport