Online petitions call for Motabs, Rockettes not to appear at inaugural

[Robert F. Smith]

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

.............................................   

The other is that people are clearly offended by Trump for what he has actually said.

Are you speaking of his crude and rude words uttered and recorded privately (and characteristic of a number of presidents), or of his public, indiscriminate lies, in addition to contemptuous and sexist speech?

25 minutes ago, CV75 said:

It seems only fair to give the choir the same benefit in explaining their purpose for performing at the inauguration (an event that would occur, regardless of who was voted in), which I think most people can agree with.

Another is that in their function as missionaries, I think the choir would have taught Hitler the Gospel given the opportunity, especially if they had foresight.

By their presence, MoTab gives a Mormon imprimatur to the Donald's obscene chicanery, and there is virtually no possibility that he will learn anything from the encounter -- except that the Mormons are there to be used and abused when it seems useful to him.  A fortiori for Adolf.

[PeterPear]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like you want to start another of your famous clocks, even though I said none of those things.  You probably need to go back and take a look at the actual quotes from both Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin (whom I named earlier for you) on not only why the Donald is the wrong ethical and moral choice, but why he is a national security threat to us all.  This is not just another political issue, and I did not vote for Hilary.  The circumstances are in fact very dire.

"The circumstances are dire...." ha ha ha! For someone who's likely living off his retirement savings, have you not noticed the Stock Market since the Nov 08 Election?

And why do Mormoms need Mitt Romney or Evan McMullin in their lives? Bcause they can't think for themselves? Or is Mitt Romney required because he having become rich and famous and obtaining the Praise of the World somehow legitimizes your being a member of the Church?

"Oh look Daddy! Mitt Romney is famous and HE's a MORMON! Now the inhabitants of the Great and Spacious Building are applauding us! Yippee!"

Then you bask in his every word including his Rameumptom speech at the UofU where he dug a pit for his neighbor. Just like his Father who criticized Sen Barry Goldwater in the 64 election and who himself was a lousy politican getting kicked out by voters forcing him to drop out after declaring he was "brainwashed" about the Vietnam War.

The circumstances are dire. Ha ha ha!

[PeterPear]

I agree wholeheartedly that The Mormon Tabernacle Choir should perfrorm at the Presidential Inauguration of Presdient Donald Trump. 

All you Mormon naysayers otherwise should dismissed as easily influenced by those haters, Romney and McMullin.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe the Facebook post I quoted in the prior thread from choir general manager Scott Barrick very well expresses the position of the choir.

Yes, the statements of the director and the Church spokesman are what I’m thinking of.

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, through distraction.  

I would like to be so tried (but I was thinking more in terms of Korihor's fate).

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you speaking of his crude and rude words uttered and recorded privately (and characteristic of a number of presidents), or of his public, indiscriminate lies, in addition to contemptuous and sexist speech?

By their presence, MoTab gives a Mormon imprimatur to the Donald's obscene chicanery, and there is virtually no possibility that he will learn anything from the encounter -- except that the Mormons are there to be used and abused when it seems useful to him.  A fortiori for Adolf.

I am thinking of everything and anything that is offensive at any level.

I’ve seen both sides of the argument in the Deseret News.  But the choir has clarified that it sees the inauguration as an opportunity to honor the ideals of a free country, and not of catering to the whims of any individual politician. Dismissing that does them and their cause a great disservice. Condemning and silencing them despite their being straight with the public robs us all of a much-needed example of civility and civics. When such treatment of good examples becomes popular, we grant bad politicos all the leeway they want to carry out their business, and I think that would be a coup for the likes of Adolf far more than any entertainment.

 

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Sounds like you want to start another of your famous clocks, even though I said none of those things.  You probably need to go back and take a look at the actual quotes from both Mitt Romney and Evan McMullin (whom I named earlier for you) on not only why the Donald is the wrong ethical and moral choice, but why he is a national security threat to us all.  This is not just another political issue, and I did not vote for Hilary.  The circumstances are in fact very dire.

Well obviously Romney thinks a Trump presidency is redeemable, since Romney let himself be considered for the Secretary of State post in the Trump administration. If Romney does indeed think that, his and my positions are not too far apart. 

After the dramatic events of election night, I suddenly became intensely interested in the election, having been apathetic about it before. I followed mainly the NBC overage on election night. Subsequently, I watched on YouTube all of the CBS election night coverage and a goodly portion of PBS and CNN. I became familiar with a personality of whom I had been only vaguely aware in the months leading up to the election. 

That person is Kellyanne Conway, the Trump campaign manager. She is s strong woman, and I admire strong women. But she is more than that. The woman is eminently sensible. She is invincible in argumentation. She doesn't suffer fools lightly. She speaks the truth with courage and candor, yet with civility, and she never loses her cool. And she has decent values. If I had my way at present, Conway would be my choice for president of the United States. She is an infinitely better candidate for the nation's first female chief executive than Hillary Clinton ever was. 

Conway will be signing on in the Trump administration as counsel to the president. I wish they could exchange places, but so long as she has Trump's ear, that gives me solid hope for a Trump presidency.  So does the fact that he would consider Romney for a cabinet post despite all that had gone on before. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, PeterPear said:

"The circumstances are dire...." ha ha ha! For someone who's likely living off his retirement savings, have you not noticed the Stock Market since the Nov 08 Election?

And why do Mormoms need Mitt Romney or Evan McMullin in their lives? Bcause they can't think for themselves? Or is Mitt Romney required because he having become rich and famous and obtaining the Praise of the World somehow legitimizes your being a member of the Church?

"Oh look Daddy! Mitt Romney is famous and HE's a MORMON! Now the inhabitants of the Great and Spacious Building are applauding us! Yippee!"

Then you bask in his every word including his Rameumptom speech at the UofU where he dug a pit for his neighbor. Just like his Father who criticized Sen Barry Goldwater in the 64 election and who himself was a lousy politican getting kicked out by voters forcing him to drop out after declaring he was "brainwashed" about the Vietnam War.

The circumstances are dire. Ha ha ha!

I didn't vote for Romney (father or son), but I agreed completely with Mitt's accurate description of the Donald, and I note that you are afraid to deal with the substantive comments of both him and McMullin -- who spoke like men, rather than like sniveling, sycophantic cowards who deal only in shameless ad hominems.  The same was true of George Romney in 1964 at the Cow Palace in South San Francisco (I was there), who was shouted down by the racist throng of Republicans there in Convention when he offered a civil rights plank for the official Republican platform.  Goldwater lost the election because he kowtowed to his racist base.  And all of us will lose when the Donald takes office in January.  Watch and learn Weedhopper.

[Robert F. Smith]

7 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Well obviously Romney thinks a Trump presidency is redeemable, since Romney let himself be considered for the Secretary of State post in the Trump administration. If Romney does indeed think that, his and my positions are not too far apart. 

After the dramatic events of election night, I suddenly became intensely interested in the election, having been apathetic about it before. I followed mainly the NBC overage on election night. Subsequently, I watched on YouTube all of the CBS election night coverage and a goodly portion of PBS and CNN. I became familiar with a personality of whom I had been only vaguely aware in the months leading up to the election. 

That person is Kellyanne Conway, the Trump campaign manager. She is s strong woman, and I admire strong women. But she is more than that. The woman is eminently sensible. She is invincible in argumentation. She doesn't suffer fools lightly. She speaks the truth with courage and candor, yet with civility, and she never loses her cool. And she has decent values. If I had my way at present, Conway would be my choice for president of the United States. She is an infinitely better candidate for the nation's first female chief executive than Hillary Clinton ever was. 

Conway will be signing on in the Trump administration as counsel to the president. I wish they could exchange places, but so long as she has Trump's ear, that gives me solid hope for a Trump presidency.  So does the fact that he would consider Romney for a cabinet post despite all that had gone on before. 

The Donald never considered Romney for a cabinet post.  That was mere hamhanded tomfoolery, the Donald only wanting to humiliate Mitt and cajole an apology from him.  Mitt is dumb, but not that dumb, and there was no apology.  You have seen the Donald's actual intended pick.  Mitt would have been completely out of place in that cabinet.  Indeed, those few appointees who are competent will likely hear that famous phrase from their Boss:  "You're fired !!"

As for Kellyanne, surely you jest.  I have heard her say nothing factual in defense of the Boss, even if she is a tireless partisan for him.  If he takes any of her advice, both of them will fall into the proverbial ditch.  And all of us are going to suffer the consequences.

[cdowis]

22 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 And all of us will lose when the Donald takes office in January.  Watch and learn Weedhopper.

There is a saying that you can tell the character of a person by the company they keep.  I call them the baggage that they bring with them into the presidency.

We are very well acquainted with Hillary's baggage, inherited from the Obama administration -- Lynch, Lois Lerner and the IRS gang,  et al.  We gain a deeper understanding of the baggage from the leaked/hacked emails, and I am personally disgusted and repulsed.

Call me WeedKiller, but let's see those who surround Trump, and judge his baggage.  Given time, oppoftunity and patience, we shall indeed watch AND learn.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis

[Scott Lloyd]

32 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The Donald never considered Romney for a cabinet post.  That was mere hamhanded tomfoolery, the Donald only wanting to humiliate Mitt and cajole an apology from him.  Mitt is dumb, but not that dumb, and there was no apology.  You have seen the Donald's actual intended pick.  Mitt would have been completely out of place in that cabinet.  Indeed, those few appointees who are competent will likely hear that famous phrase from their Boss:  "You're fired !!"

As for Kellyanne, surely you jest.  I have heard her say nothing factual in defense of the Boss, even if she is a tireless partisan for him.  If he takes any of her advice, both of them will fall into the proverbial ditch.  And all of us are going to suffer the consequences.

I hold you in high regard, Bob, but if I were a betting man and there were a debate between you and Conway, my money would be on her.

[Scott Lloyd]

Daniel Peterson has been both vehement and sustained in his contempt for Trump.

But in this blog post, he argues convincingly that acceptance of the invitation to perform at the inaugural is the only sensible choice for both the choir and the Church:

Quote

 

I have no privileged access to the reasoning of leaders of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with regard to the Choir’s acceptance of an offer to sing at the inauguration of Donald J. Trump and Mike Pence.  But I think that I can imagine pretty well, at least in part, what it must have been.

 

When the invitation arrived, these leaders must immediately have realized that it placed them in a dilemma.  To have the Mormon Tabernacle Choir prominently featured at Mr. Trump’s inauguration would seem to be making a political statement.  On the other hand, to have refused the invitation would not only have seemed to be a political statement, it would actually have been one.

 

But the Church doesn’t make partisan political statements.  As far as I’m aware, the Choir has now been invited to participate in six American presidential inaugurations — those of Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and George H. W. Bush.  It has accepted every single one of them.  It has performed for both Democrats and Republicans.  The First Presidency has welcomed John F. Kennedy and **** Cheney and Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama and many others to Church headquarters in Salt Lake City.  Members of the First Presidency and/or the Twelve have represented the Church at presidential inaugurations for both Democrats and Republicans (and have met with the leaders of a host of countries, from Indonesia to Bolivia, from China to Israel).  It’s wholly unreasonable and unjust to construe such events as partisan endorsements.

 

To sing at Mr. Trump’s inaugural will no doubt seem, to some, to be an endorsement of Mr. Trump.  However, to refuse would, unmistakably and unambiguously, be to repudiate not just him but, in a sense, his legitimacy as president.  It would be an unprecedented political declaration by the Church.

 

But, some will say, various prominent stars have declined to perform at the ceremonies.  That is, of course, their right.  They have absolutely no obligation to be or to seem nonpartisan.  But the Church does have such an obligation, both legally and ethically.

 

Consider the precedent that a refusal would set:  If the Church and the Choir were to decide that Mr. Trump’s character and policies put him beyond the pale of legitimacy in this case, Church and Choir leadership would need to enter into a similar calculus in all subsequent cases, as well.  Does President-Elect X’s position on immigration render him unworthy of the Choir’s singing?  Is President-Elect Y’s stance on Russian adventurism too accepting (or too rigidly opposed) for the Choir to be permitted to sing at his inaugural ceremonies?  Do President-Elect Z’s personal acts and habits render him or her ineligible for Choir participation at the presidential swearing-in?

 

The controversies would recur every time an invitation was extended.  They would be loud and bitter.   Partisans would have a field day.  The internet would light up.  It would be unspeakably ugly.

 

Now, obviously, there’s a line beyond which the Church and the Choir could not go.  Presumably, for instance, if the nation decided to elect the clear contemporary equivalent of Pol Pot or Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin, they would have to say No.  And some may imagine that we’re in precisely that situation right now.

 

I, however, do not.

 

Please understand:  If you’re unaware of how early, consistently, and vocally I opposed Donald Trump, you haven’t paid any attention to my blog.  I disapprove of him on just about every possible level.   I didn’t vote for him.  I’m crossing my fingers that he won’t be a major national disaster.

 

But I think that the Church and the Choir reacted to the invitation for the Choir to participate in his inauguration in the best way that they could, under the circumstances.

 

I also didn’t vote for Hillary Clinton.  As I’ve explained many times here, I’m a serious political conservative, trending libertarian (with a small “L”) on economic and several other matters.  But, had Mrs. Clinton been elected and had the Choir been invited to sing at her swearing-in, I would have supported their going.

 

The fact is that the American electorate and the Electoral College have spoken.  Donald J. Trump has been legitimately elected president of the United States of America.  I deeply wish somebody else had been — I can think of many men and women that I would have preferred — but there you have it.  To coin a phrase, It is what it is.

 

Some have said that having the Mormon Tabernacle Choir perform at Mr. Trump’s inauguration “feels bad,” that it gives off a “bad vibe.”  I understand that.  Believe me, I do.  But that’s because, for many of us who regard him as (to list just a few of our objections) an ignorant, unprincipled, unconservative, bigoted, intellectually uncurious, amoral, self-obsessed, xenophobic, insecure, authoritarian demagogue — I’ve probably left a great many important things out — his inauguration as such “feels bad” and gives off a “bad vibe.”  The fact remains, though, that America’s voters and our system have delivered the White House into his very small hands, and that we’re going to have to live with it for the next while and to hope for the best.

 

Since I was a fairly young teenager, I’ve been fond of a Latin phrase that goes back to Cicero’s On Friendship (De Amicitia):  Esse quam videri (“To be, rather than to seem”).  It is, or has been, the motto of a very great number of organizations, ranging from the BYU Men’s Chorus to the State of North Carolina.  I didn’t know that when I was young, and I can’t recall how or where I came across it.  But I’ve even used it, from time to time, as a personal motto.  As I see this situation, the Church might have preferred not to have had the Choir invited to participate in the 2017 presidential inauguration.  I can easily envision that.  Once the invitation arrived, however, Church and Choir leaders had the choice of seeming to be political neutral or actually being politically neutral.  I believe that their choice of the latter was right and proper.

 

Your mileage may differ.  But in that case, of course, you’ll be wrong.

 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, cdowis said:

There is a saying that you can tell the character of a person by the company they keep.  I call them the baggage that they bring with them into the presidency.

We are very well acquainted with Hillary's baggage, inherited from the Obama administration -- Lynch, Lois Lerner and the IRS gang,  et al.  We gain a deeper understanding of the baggage from the leaked/hacked emails, and I am personally disgusted and repulsed.

Call me WeedKiller, but let's see those who surround Trump, and judge his baggage.  Given time, oppoftunity and patience, we shall indeed watch AND learn.

I did not vote for Hillary (as you seem to think), but your rejection of Stalin in favor of Hitler is not something to be proud of, and you will live to rue the day you put your faith in an imposter.  I chose to vote for someone honest and capable.  You had the same opportunity, but chose to do otherwise.

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I hold you in high regard, Bob, but if I were a betting man and there were a debate between you and Conway, my money would be on her.

Depends on whether you give points for shock and awe (from Conway), bald-faced invention of "facts" (a Conway specialty), and for sheer effrontery & sophistry (also from Conway), or from reasoned political discourse based on actual facts.  I have a degree in political science, Scott, but I would much prefer to have Evan McMullin carry on a debate with Conway.  She would be humiliated.  Here is a sample of McMullin (a grad of BYU and of the Wharton School, an undercover CIA operations officer, and former policy chief for the Republican Congressional Conference):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2w7XC4ozC4 .

Edited December 26, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[cdowis]

47 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

I did not vote for Hillary (as you seem to think), but your rejection of Stalin in favor of Hitler is not something to be proud of, and you will live to rue the day you put your faith in an imposter.  I chose to vote for someone honest and capable.  You had the same opportunity, but chose to do otherwise.

Interesting, I did see the same choice as you did.  I was tired of Stalin and thought I would give Hitler a chance.  

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Depends on whether you give points for shock and awe (from Conway), bald-faced invention of "facts" (a Conway specialty), and for sheer effrontery & sophistry (also from Conway), or from reasoned political discourse based on actual facts.  I have a degree in political science, Scott, but I would much prefer to have Evan McMullin carry on a debate with Conway.  She would be humiliated.  Here is a sample of McMullin (a grad of BYU and of the Wharton School, an undercover CIA operations officer, and former policy chief for the Republican Congressional Conference):  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h2w7XC4ozC4 .

It's one thing to make allegations ("effrontery," "sophistry," etc.); it's another thing to substantiate them.

I say again: in the past few weeks, I have viewed via YouTube numerous interactions between Conway and media representatives (many of them unabashedly biased themselves), political pundits, opponents, interviewers. I'm not seeing what you're claiming. Not any of it.

She is by profession a political strategist and president of her own polling firm. She has been a political commentator on several network news shows. This year, she chaired a political action committee for Ted Cruz. Not until Cruz suspended his presidential campaign, did she join the Trump campaign.

The woman has a lot of talent, but she is not dishonest, as you are alleging. I'll leave it at that.

And as I've said on several occasions now, I voted for McMullin. I agree with you he is impressive, so impressive that he got my vote when I could not be comfortable with either mainstream candidate in this presidential election.

But I'm now four minutes into the nearly 19-minute video you linked me to. I've not yet seen McMullin say anything pertaining to Kellyanne Conway. Can we just cut to the chase here and have you tell me whether or not that will come up later in the video, or is this just your attempt at deflection? I mean, that's almost 20 minutes of my life I won't be able to get back again.

 

Edited December 26, 2016 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

52 minutes ago, cdowis said:

Interesting, I did see the same choice as you did.  I was tired of Stalin and thought I would give Hitler a chance.  

Hillary Clinton is no Stalin, and Donald Trump is no Hitler. Can we not agree that the histrionics are getting us nowhere?

[BlueDreams]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

You have no way of knowing the reasons 100 choir members are not going, and therefore, you are not justified in assuming it is because they disapprove of the choir performing at the inauguration. 

It takes a great deal of individual logistical sacrifice by choir members to fulfill out-of-town engagements. They are unpaid volunteers who must secure time off from work and other responsibilities to fulfill such duties. Even so, since not every member can be accommodated, there is typically a waiting list for participation in out-of-town engagements (I know there was for the Europe tour of this past summer), so the choir management can afford to allow for extenuating circumstances. Even so, I'm fairly certain political disagreement is not one of the circumstances for which allowance is made, and prospective choir members know that when they accept the privilege (and it is a privilege) of being in the choir. 

Well I know one woman who's in the choir (or at least was a year ago). Knowing her enough, I could easily see her not going for similar reasons that I wouldn't. I'm aware there's logistical concerns. But for just about any other inauguration I would want to be in the pool of potential candidates. Not this one. I am not assuming that all of the ones opting out are doing so because they have personal problems with Trump or his inauguration. But I think it's a fair bet considering the size of the choir, the make up of said choir, etc that at least some of those opting out doing it for personal reservations about the man. And if I were in the choir I would be one of those (which is what I said). I couldn't stomach singing for it. I would also assume some who are chosen don't like it but are willing to do it for their personal reasons/values (similar to what the church mentioned). I have done things for performances or events that were difficult. Sometimes I wasn't fully on board, but did it. But at some point I wouldn't. This would be my personal "some point." And it has very very little for me to do with politics. As I've stated, my concerns for trump isn't much about partisan disapproval.

Just as I am not at license to assume all 100 are opting for personal concerns, I don't think you are at license to assume that they couldn't opt for personal disapproval or pain. Personally, the idea of singing for Trump makes me somewhat near queasy, disheartened, and it just sounds painful to me. I would really really really have to fast just so i could fake a smile on stage. I've done performances where my heart or body wasn't fully there, but this would be a new level for me. I just couldn't do it. 

 

With luv, 

BD 

[cdowis]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hillary Clinton is no Stalin, and Donald Trump is no Hitler. Can we not agree that the histrionics are getting us nowhere?

Scott, in case you are unaware, this forum has an ignore function.  If you find my posts offensive, you may want to take advantage of it.

Robert and I clearly understood what was meant, and as a professional in the media, you still have alot to learn, my friend, about how people communicate.  I strongly suggest that you take this as a learning opportunity.

Edited December 26, 2016 by cdowis