HappyJackWagon Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: There's always a possibility of blowback but I think it would be minimal. Performing at an inauguration is an honor and I think most people will get that. I think it's natural that many performers would reject requests to perform for who they they perceive is a divisive President-elect with discriminatory tendencies. Each performer has the right to make the decision for themselves based on how they feel performing at the inauguration could damage or help their brand. For MOTAB, I think it's a neutral move. I may have underestimated this. People on Facebook are losing their minds over this. Still, in my mind it's much ado about nothing. 4
thesometimesaint Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 Actually about 43% of registered voters didn't bother to vote at all. About 5-7% voted third party. Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. 1
ERayR Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 54 minutes ago, oremites said: Which is why it was so heartening to see all those good men (and women) vote for President Trump. This time evil did not succeed. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Ah but the truth is so simple. This time evil did not completely engulf us as it was so close to doing. 1
Popular Post Calm Posted December 22, 2016 Popular Post Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) 11 hours ago, Abulafia said: A bad and disappointing move given how Trump has conducted himself. Outside of Utah, and internationally, I believe the negative impact will outweigh any positives. There is Trump and there is the Presidential office. One can show respect to the latter without compromising one's moral position. If he is a legally elected president, then the traditions surrounding the president that give a tie to the past, present, and future no matter who is in the office should be vigorously supported, if only to demonstrate the office (and thus country) is bigger and more important than the individual and will survive and again thrive even with immoral, incompetent individuals are occupying the seat for a few years. History has demonstrated this for us not a few times. Edited December 23, 2016 by Calm 8
Jeanne Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 1 hour ago, Abulafia said: A bad and disappointing move given how Trump has conducted himself. Outside of Utah, and internationally, I believe the negative impact will outweigh any positives. I agree on many points on this. My hop e that those around him and the office itself will keep him in check. If Clinton had won, me and others like me, would have shook our deplorable selves off and been on the bandwagon to support the POTUS. I am so hoping that the man has outgrown such foolish and often unchecked behavior. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 My friend Scott Barrick, general manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, posted this on Facebook: Quote I wanted to share this announcement that the Choir will perform at the Trump inauguration in January. I recognize that there may be some people who think that this may not be appropriate for the Choir. We view this as an opportunity to fulfill our mission as ambassadors for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to serve our country by singing at the inauguration of its duly elected president. This is the seventh time that the Choir has accepted an invitation to perform at a presidential inaugural, having done so for both Republican and Democratic presidents in keeping with the Church's political neutrality. As the Choir sings it will be celebrating America and the peaceful transition of power which has endured since the foundation of our country. Somone posted back: Quote I am sorry but I feel that this puts the church forward as the face of racists and bigots. Scott replied: Quote As we support the office of the presidency, that does not necessarily mean support for any particular policy of an administration. I think the Church has done very well of late with its work on the Utah compact relative to legal immigration as well as the outreach to the LGBT community through agreements made last year here in Utah. So hopefully we can judge the face of each entity on its own merits. But I do understand your concern Basically, the same sentiment Calm just posted. Good job, Calm! 3
Scott Lloyd Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, smac97 said: Here: "Difficulty securing talent" is a diplomatic way of saying it. I'm inclined to think that Bocelli caved under the boycott threat. "So he wouldn't offend" = "caved to massive social pressure". And in other news, in anticipation of Jackie's anticipated participation in the inauguration: Jackie Evancho Says She is Being Cyber-Bullied Over Donald Trump Inauguration Performance US News Jackie Evancho Faces Backlash for Agreeing to Sing on Trump Inauguration Day Jackie Evancho, 16, addresses backlash since agreeing to sing at Trump inauguration I suspect we'll see similar treatment of the Choir. So the Choir did was not invited to perform for Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, or Barack Obama (that is, all of the Democratic presidents for the last half century). I think there's a generally non-nefarious reason for that... This seems like a plausible explanation as to why the Democratic presidents have not invited the Tab Choir. The Choir is strongly linked to Utah. No Democratic candidate has won the Utah vote since 1964, which was the year LBJ won. And LBJ happens to have been the only Democratic president to invite the Choir to perform (and, notably, also the first president to do so). So it seems like an invitation to the Choir is strongly correlated with the prevailing vote in Utah. I'm glad that the Choir, perhaps the most well-known ambassadorial arm of the Church, does not seem to "play politics." I am curious, though, as to why there were no performances for Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Anyhoo, I wonder if there will be social media and other forms of blowback against the Choir and the Church, rather along the lines of what happened to Bocelli (and, probably, other performers). Thanks, -Smac Is Bocelli an American citizen? If not, he might not feel the same moral obligation to perform at the inauguration in service to the country as the Tabernacle Choir collectively does. Just sayin' Edited December 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Jeanne said: I agree on many points on this. My hop e that those around him and the office itself will keep him in check. If Clinton had won, me and others like me, would have shook our deplorable selves off and been on the bandwagon to support the POTUS. I am so hoping that the man has outgrown such foolish and often unchecked behavior. If Hillary had won and then the choir had been invited to perform at the inaugural, I would have been as thrilled as I am now -- perhaps more so because it is rare for that to happen with a president who is Democrat. I voted for neither, but as I've already indicated, I was delighted with Clinton's unexpected loss. Edited December 22, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
california boy Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: This is just one example of why it is wise for the Church to remain officially neutral as pertaining to partisan politics (though not moral issues). The choir can thus feel free to accept an invitation such as this without sending any untoward or unintended messages. I would love to see another U.S. president from the Democratic Party invite the choir to perform at his/her inaugural sometime. There is no good reason why it shouldn't happen. While officially, the church is neutral as pertaining to partisan politics, I think it is pretty safe to say that most people strongly associate the Mormon church with the Republican party. That said. I personally think that the inauguration of a president is a perfect time to choose representatives of both party to join together in such an occasion. We are all Americans. I want every president to be successful as long as they lead this country in a direction that is consistent with our Constitution. Unfortunately, much of the message that Trump campaigned on was not consistent with the Constitution. It has people scared. Fear can be a powerful motivating force to do good or evil. 2
Popular Post pogi Posted December 22, 2016 Popular Post Posted December 22, 2016 50 minutes ago, california boy said: Fear can be a powerful motivating force to do good or evil. ...but mostly it motivates people to act like flaming idiots on Facebook. 7
cdowis Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 (edited) 4 hours ago, thesometimesaint said: Trump lost the popular vote by almost 3 million. Don't let the propaganda machine fool you. Can I assume that you are aware that 3M came from California and NY. The rest of the country voted for Trump. Over the past 8 years the Dems have lost majorities in the House, the Senate, state legislatures and governorships in the majority of the states. Now, if it were not for the Electorial College, California and NY would dominate, and dictate the results of every presidential election. And they have "flexible" voter ID laws. Edited December 22, 2016 by cdowis 3
thesometimesaint Posted December 22, 2016 Posted December 22, 2016 Clinton won 20 states Trump 30. Nice of you to kick California and New York out of the Union. Maybe we Californians and New Yorkers can now keep our money that goes to welfare queen states like Utah. You don't know what the heck you are talking about. Californian's get their ballots in the mail unless otherwise desired. We have to clear state voter registration laws to even be on the voter list. Poster removed for politicizing every post. 1
SteveO Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 45 minutes ago, pogi said: ...but mostly it motivates people to act like flaming idiots on Facebook. I think everyone would notice an "uptick" in their mood and personal wellbeing, as well as an improvement in overall quality of life, if they got rid of Facebook. Wife and I are getting rid of Facebook over the holidays and seeing if it makes a difference...I'm making a prediction that it will be for the better 4
Popular Post MorningStar Posted December 23, 2016 Popular Post Posted December 23, 2016 MoTab is singing for America - not to endorse Trump. I would sing even though I can't stand him. But I might change the lyrics in an unflattering way ...... Hahahaha 6
Rajah Manchou Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 How about a Trumpian solution to the problem. MoTab agrees to perform at the inauguration if Trump first publicly apologizes for calling Mormonism an alien faith and for the things he has said about Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin. 3
sunstoned Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 9 hours ago, oremites said: Which is why it was so heartening to see all those good men (and women) vote for President Trump. This time evil did not succeed. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) What a joke. He hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already he has re-ignited the nuclear arms race with his stupid tweets.
Popular Post The Nehor Posted December 23, 2016 Popular Post Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, pogi said: ...but mostly it motivates people to act like flaming idiots on Facebook. There is a reason I average about five minutes on Facebook a month. It lets me be a flaming idiot here instead. Edited December 23, 2016 by The Nehor 6
cdowis Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 11 minutes ago, sunstoned said: What a joke. He hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already he has re-ignited the nuclear arms race with his stupid tweets. You clearly did not notice that he was responding to Putin's threat to increase their nuclear arsenal. Stay tuned to the FULL story. Become informed, Don't become one of those a low information voters that voted for Hillary. Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis 1
bluebell Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 9 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: My friend Scott Barrick, general manager of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir, posted this on Facebook: Somone posted back: Scott replied: Basically, the same sentiment Calm just posted. Good job, Calm! Is there a link to his quote? Someone asked me for a reference because they want to share it.
sunstoned Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, cdowis said: You clearly did not notice that he was responding to Putin's threat to increase their nuclear arsenal. Stay tuned to the FULL story. Become informed, Don't become one of those a low information voters. (can we assume you voted for Hillary?) Ratcheting up the rhetoric when it comes to nuclear weapons is not the sign of a true leader. And I do believe that on some level you know this. BTY, I did vote for Hillary. Accorded to the polls, the low informed voters (non-college educated) were the ones to voted Trump into office.
cdowis Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 16 minutes ago, sunstoned said: Ratcheting up the rhetoric when it comes to nuclear weapons is not the sign of a true leader. I know nothing about you, so please share with us your experience in formal leadership in international military affairs. And we shall compare that experience with those who are advisers to our President elect Donald Trump. Take a trip to Tump Tower and share your expertise with him on "true leadership". Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis
sunstoned Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 6 minutes ago, cdowis said: I know nothing about you, so please share with us your experience in formal leadership in international military affairs. And we shall compare that experience with those who are advisers to our President elect Donald Trump. Take a trip to Tump Tower and share your expertise with him on "true leadership". You are right. I have no experience with politics or the military (which puts me on the same level as Trump). Going against 40 years of progress by tweeting that we should up our nuclear arsenal might just be the right thing to do. Personally, it just does not give me a very secure feeling.
cdowis Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 53 minutes ago, sunstoned said: You are right. I have no experience with politics or the military (which puts me on the same level as Trump). You didn't read my post, did you. More info http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/22/putin-and-trump-talk-up-need-for-more-nuclear-weapons/ Edited December 23, 2016 by cdowis 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Is there a link to his quote? Someone asked me for a reference because they want to share it. It's on my Facebook feed. To be honest, I don't know enough about Facebook to be able to link to it.
oremites Posted December 23, 2016 Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, sunstoned said: What a joke. He hasn't even been sworn in yet, and already he has re-ignited the nuclear arms race with his stupid tweets. Arms race with who? And how is what President-elect Trump tweeted different than what President Obama is already doing? "The Obama administration has requested large increases for nuclear weapons programs at the Defense and Energy Departments to sustain and modernize the arsenal. Indeed, current and proposed spending levels for many key efforts currently exceed what the administration originally advertised early in its first term." https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/USNuclearModernization Edited December 23, 2016 by oremites 2
Recommended Posts