Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 10 hours ago, bluebell said: Where I live, there were quite a few members who sincerely believed that Obama was going to overthrow the government and become a dictator when he won the second time. They were devastated when he was elected. There are always going to be the looney tunes crowd in any community, and conspiracy theories have become more common now that fake news is dominant. However, most people and certainly most politicians have been far too cynical to imagine that the switch from Bush to Obama (or any other shift in power in my lifetime in America) really made much difference, and they always attended the inaugurals as standard procedure. They have generally been very civil.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 9 hours ago, Gray said: As a liberal, I would happily take any of the previous Republican presidents over Trump. Unfortunately I have come to live in the days of the fulfillment of the old Chinese curse - "may you live in interesting times" Yes. Except in the case of Richard Nixon, common decency has usually prevailed regardless of party affiliation. At least in my lifetime. 1
bluebell Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: There are always going to be the looney tunes crowd in any community, and conspiracy theories have become more common now that fake news is dominant. However, most people and certainly most politicians have been far too cynical to imagine that the switch from Bush to Obama (or any other shift in power in my lifetime in America) really made much difference, and they always attended the inaugurals as standard procedure. They have generally been very civil. These were not people who were looney tunes or conspiracy theorists, though. They were some of the most respected members of the non-LDS community and also leaders in the church. 2
Bobbieaware Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said: For those who are confused about fascism. The thing that really separates fascism from other dictatorships is the regimentation of industry. Fascism is also characterized generally as a very right wing system of government. I don't see how Jan Chamberlin can be considered A- a dictator, B- right wing, or C- in the act of forcible suppressing opposition or regimenting industry. Accusing her of being fascistic is just absurd and reflects a gross misunderstanding of the word. Edited January 5, 2017 by Bobbieaware
Calm Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, why me said: However, forces on the left are acting fascistic with their attempts to squash those who are attending trump's inauguration. Trying to shut other voices down isn't unique to fascism. Applying it overbroadly is not helpful to solving the problem, but only creates more opportunity for fear, which leads to anger, which leads to hate. Please break the cycle by not giving in to the temptation of intolerance by false labeling of others. Edited January 5, 2017 by Calm 3
Robert F. Smith Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, bluebell said: These were not people who were looney tunes or conspiracy theorists, though. They were some of the most respected members of the non-LDS community and also leaders in the church. I don't know who you are talking about then, because I don't know of any LDS leaders who went of the rails that way (except maybe one, and he abandoned the nutty stuff when he became President of the Church). Also who are these highly respected non-LDS people? Not sure I understand what you are trying to say.
bluebell Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 40 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said: I don't know who you are talking about then, because I don't know of any LDS leaders who went of the rails that way (except maybe one, and he abandoned the nutty stuff when he became President of the Church). Also who are these highly respected non-LDS people? Not sure I understand what you are trying to say. I mean these were people who served in leadership in their ward (such as bishop) and served on the city council and college boards in the community which was mainly non LDS. 3
Sky Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: Seriously? You're blaming the Tabernacle Choir for not performing at events they've never been invited to? I'm just not so sure that they are as non-partisan as they say they are...we could argue all day why they haven't performed at the inauguration of a Democratic president in over 50 years. But, anyway, that's beside the point. For me, this is really about Donald Trump and taking a moral stand. If this inauguration were for anybody other than Donald Trump, I wouldn't be protesting like this. I stand with Jan Chamberlin and her right to speak out and stand up for what she believes in. I stand with all those that Donald Trump has marginalized and demeaned. You stand with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the decision of the Church to perform - and apparently with Donald Trump. Fine. I made my point and we are not going to agree, so I don't see the point in further engaging with you on this matter. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 2 hours ago, Sky said: I'm just not so sure that they are as non-partisan as they say they are...we could argue all day why they haven't performed at the inauguration of a Democratic president in over 50 years. But, anyway, that's beside the point. For me, this is really about Donald Trump and taking a moral stand. If this inauguration were for anybody other than Donald Trump, I wouldn't be protesting like this. I stand with Jan Chamberlin and her right to speak out and stand up for what she believes in. I stand with all those that Donald Trump has marginalized and demeaned. You stand with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the decision of the Church to perform - and apparently with Donald Trump. Fine. I made my point and we are not going to agree, so I don't see the point in further engaging with you on this matter. I see you have ignored my clear and simple question of how you think the choir could have been expected to perform at inaugurations to which it was not invited. Though I earnestly disagree with much of what has been said in this thread, I do see at least a modicum of merit to most of it -- except for your notion that the choir or the Church or Utah is to blame for the choir not having performed at inaugurations for presidents who were Democrats. That is utterly and absolutely baseless and devoid of merit. 1
Meadowchik Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 43 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I see you have ignored my clear and simple question of how you think the choir could have been expected to perform at inaugurations to which it was not invited. Though I earnestly disagree with much of what has been said in this thread, I do see at least a modicum of merit to most of it -- except for your notion that the choir or the Church or Utah is to blame for the choir not having performed at inaugurations for presidents who were Democrats. That is utterly and absolutely baseless and devoid of merit. One could say that the choice to perform when they were invited for the host's partisan reasons was a choice to go along with the partisan Washington game. Sky argued that this does not appear purely nonpartisan, and that claim is not baseless or devoid of merit.
Bernard Gui Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 14 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said: With a church full of friends like this, who needs enemies? I continue to be baffled and discouraged by the treatment of this woman online by supposed faithful LDS members. Some people claim that church provides an unparalleled community of love and acceptance but I'm just not seeing it. People couldn't have turned on this woman any faster than they did. It's not every day that a member makes a public mistake that drags the Church and now our most beloved and innocuous institution into controversy and disrepute. Unfortunately, the damage continues to spread and there appears to be no good way to contain it. As I have stated several times, I hope this turns out well for everyone, including our sister. 3
Tacenda Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 It's interesting that Scott Lloyd's employer, came out against Trump in an editorial, almost as much as this member of the choir. Has this been mentioned? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html 1
Bernard Gui Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 14 hours ago, Rain said: I know WW1 really had an effect on Germany. Did they have anything set up similar to the constitution? Did that change with WW1? Here is a good summary with a reference to their constitution. I'm hard pressed to equate the situation we are in with the chaos in post-WWI Germany, or Hitler with Trump https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weimar_Republic 3
Bernard Gui Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Sky said: I'm just not so sure that they are as non-partisan as they say they are...we could argue all day why they haven't performed at the inauguration of a Democratic president in over 50 years. But, anyway, that's beside the point. For me, this is really about Donald Trump and taking a moral stand. If this inauguration were for anybody other than Donald Trump, I wouldn't be protesting like this. I stand with Jan Chamberlin and her right to speak out and stand up for what she believes in. I stand with all those that Donald Trump has marginalized and demeaned. You stand with the Mormon Tabernacle Choir and the decision of the Church to perform - and apparently with Donald Trump. Fine. I made my point and we are not going to agree, so I don't see the point in further engaging with you on this matter. And this is the unfortunate fallout from an ill-considered public mistake that could have been avoided but now has dragged the Church into a controversy that pits members against the Church and members against members. Is Trump Hitler? If so, what title attaches to the Church? This is what happens when rash accusations are made. I hope this ends well for everyone, but it appears not to be turning out that way. Edited January 5, 2017 by Bernard Gui 1
Calm Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 32 minutes ago, Tacenda said: It's interesting that Scott Lloyd's employer, came out against Trump in an editorial, almost as much as this member of the choir. Has this been mentioned? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html And they managed to do it quite well without the slightest gesture towards Hitler or fascism. I didn't think it was possible! 1
Meadowchik Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: It's not every day that a member makes a public mistake that drags the Church and now our most beloved and innocuous institution into controversy and disrepute. Unfortunately, the damage continues to spread and there appears to be no good way to contain it. As I have stated several times, I hope this turns out well for everyone, including our sister. There was already controversy before Chamberlain said anything. Please don't make the mistake of transferring the dissent of thousands onto her shoulders. 1
why me Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) It seems that many organizations are being pressured to not perform for Trump. Strange that the US has now come to this. I believe that such mass hysteria is not good for the USA at all. If Bill and Hillary are going and if the Bushes are going, and Jimmy Carter too, why not other organizations who have been invited? It smells of hypocrisy. I think that it is up to Hillary to make a statement about this. She should come out and call on her supporters to stop the intimidation. Likewise for Bill and George. They need to make statements. As a side note it was awful that the special needs man in Chicago was kidnapped and tortured by people who claimed that he was a Trump supporter. Is this what the USA has become? Can this be due to the mass hysteria about donald trump and the camparisons to hitler and david duke? I am glad the the choir did not succumb to pressure and they will perform for the last few presidents: Bill, Jimmy and George. Edited January 5, 2017 by why me
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Tacenda said: It's interesting that Scott Lloyd's employer, came out against Trump in an editorial, almost as much as this member of the choir. Has this been mentioned? http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865664336/In-our-opinion-Donald-Trump-should-resign-his-candidacy.html 4 hours ago, Calm said: And they managed to do it quite well without the slightest gesture towards Hitler or fascism. I didn't think it was possible! As I already pointed out when somebody brought this up earlier, within minutes after the news networks had called the race for Trump on election night, the Deseret News went online with an editorial of congratulations and support for the new president-elect. Were you aware of that, Tacenda? Do you really think these two events are comparable? Edited January 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Meadowchik said: One could say that the choice to perform when they were invited for the host's partisan reasons was a choice to go along with the partisan Washington game. Sky argued that this does not appear purely nonpartisan, and that claim is not baseless or devoid of merit. If it's the policy and practice of the choir to accept any and all invitations to perform at presidential inaugurations without regard to political party, then it is a non-partisan choice. Yes, the argument is utterly devoid of merit and exceedingly absurd. Edited January 5, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 3 hours ago, Meadowchik said: There was already controversy before Chamberlain said anything. Please don't make the mistake of transferring the dissent of thousands onto her shoulders. The obvious difference being that the Church had not been dragged into this political controversy. Bernard Gui nailed it, as usual.
Meadowchik Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: If it's the policy and practice of the choir to accept any and all invitations to perform at presidential inaugurations without regard to political party, then it is a non-partisan choice. Yes, the argument is utterly devoid of merit and exceedingly absurd. That's a deflection to policy, not substance.
Meadowchik Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 12 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: The obvious difference being that the Church had not been dragged into this political controversy. Bernard Gui nailed it, as usual. There was already controversy about the choir singing at the inauguration. You even started a post about the petition against it, before Chamberlin said anything: 1
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 14 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: That's a deflection to policy, not substance. This makes no sense.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Meadowchik said: There was already controversy about the choir singing at the inauguration. You even started a post about the petition against it, before Chamberlin said anything: I misspoke. I should have said the church had not been dragged further into the controversy. Jan Chamberlin's action gave the matter legs that it didn't have before. It was, in brief, sensationalistic grandstanding that I believe achieved its purpose.
Meadowchik Posted January 5, 2017 Posted January 5, 2017 1 minute ago, Scott Lloyd said: This makes no sense. Because a partisan church having a "nonpartisan" policy means it won't be partisan? (I'm not dogging the fact that the church has been very partisan, historically, just pointing out that it is.)
Recommended Posts