Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 24

[Safe-Keeper]

I remember last Christmas when the big hub-ub was how the White House was decorated for Christmas and I thought that was just as silly for largely the same reasons.

Again it's not like finding things to criticize Trump or Melania for is like super difficult and whining about stuff like this just seems petty.

Oh, I don't think any of us pretend this matters in the big picture. But it's like those smaller Trump moments, like pushing other heads of state out of the way to be on the centre of the stage himself, that are worth mentioning even though they won't exactly sway the election.

 

[Sherkeu]

A combination of "You have money, why are you complaining?" and "You aren't suffering, so why should anybody care?" If you don't give up everything and don a hair-shirt, your protests don't count. He also doesn't seem to understand the concept of showing empathy, thiking only of the money involved.

I was a bit floored when I heard Don Lemon talking about this last night and arguing with Bob Costas that perhaps the boycott would make fans angry... so that more would pay attention to the 'message'.

wow.

For dedicated fans who just want to see some sports and have a sliver of normalcy and some joy in their lives watching the game, it sounds like a big kick in the face. I do not think it will have the effect they are going for.

IMO. YMMV.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've already said that I don't think Melania deserves a break because it's Trump that is the problem. Melania bitched about undocumented immigrants and proclaimed how she came here legally. But she didn't. She worked illegally, for years apparently, on a tourist VISA. Remember that 'she'll be holding a press conference in 2 weeks to show all her documents'? Trump uses that 2 week promise all the time because he knows he can shift the news cycle and people will quit pressing.

Her parents came here while parents of minor children, even when said parents are married to a citizen, are not allowed in the country.

I could go on. Of course the Rose Garden is not on the top of the list of concerns. So don't concern yourself.

As for the tulips simply being bulbs in the ground this time of year, unless they are going to push up through the added sidewalk, they are gone.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

For dedicated fans who just want to see some sports and have a sliver of normalcy and some joy in their lives watching the game, it sounds like a big kick in the face. I do not think it will have the effect they are going for.

Yeah, because 'dedicated fans' don't care about the players or anybody else, they just want to be entertained dammit!

But I think it will have the effect they are looking for, which is publicity by whatever is the most effective means. Dedicated fans may hate their entertainment being interrupted, but if so that's a good thing because it will get people talking about it. The worst that could happen is if the protests are ignored.

 

[Sherkeu]

Yeah, because 'dedicated fans' don't care about the players or anybody else, they just want to be entertained dammit!

But I think it will have the effect they are looking for, which is publicity by whatever is the most effective means. Dedicated fans may hate their entertainment being interrupted, but if so that's a good thing because it will get people talking about it. The worst that could happen is if the protests are ignored.

If they want publicity, it seems logical to be in public. After game interviews, magazine articles, whatever.
A boycott seems to do the opposite. It is a negative. It uplifts, informs and inspires no one. I think it is a big turd of a virtue signal. Good intentions, but out of touch and misguided.

 

[alfaniner]

Well, while romantic, the "before" seems a bit seedy. A garden like that needs to be constantly trimmed. The new ... "Victorian" style is not my taste, but ... taste cant be evaluated. In short, I fail to see the outrage in this. I'ts just a garden, for ****** sake.

Hans

She planted a lot of new bulbs that won't sprout until next year. One morning in the spring people are going to wake up to see "I'M OUT - THANK YOU AMERICA" spelled out in big, bold blossoms.

 

[Segnosaur]

If they want publicity, it seems logical to be in public. After game interviews...

Many people (even dedicated fans) don't bother watching things like that. And if they are a MAGAchud? Even if they did like to watch after-game shows, they would probably turn it off once the player started talking politics.

....magazine articles

....
Not every fan cares enough to read up on player opinions. They care about the game itself, and things that directly impact the game.

A boycott seems to do the opposite. It is a negative. It uplifts, informs and inspires no one.

It brings attention to the situation.

If they decided to keep their protests to after-game shows and magazine articles, it would likely be forgotten rather quickly.

I remember seeing a news segment with Colin Kaepernick and some right-wing minor news flunky. The same thing was suggest of him... "Why kneel during the anthem instead of doing interviews"... his response was along the lines of "I did that before and nobody paid attention... now that I'm kneeling during the anthem people are talking about the situation".

 

[thaiboxerken]

If they want publicity, it seems logical to be in public. After game interviews, magazine articles, whatever.
A boycott seems to do the opposite. It is a negative. It uplifts, informs and inspires no one. I think it is a big turd of a virtue signal. Good intentions, but out of touch and misguided.

It doesn't matter what they do to protest, it's always wrong.

If they take a knee, it's wrong.
If they stop playing, it's wrong.
If they wear a protest sign/shirt/ garment, it's wrong.
If they talk about it in pressers, interviews or at all, it's wrong.

Essentially, if it bothers the privilege of those in power, it's wrong.

They need to get back to picking cotton just play the game.

 

[Steve]

Yeah, because 'dedicated fans' don't care about the players or anybody else, they just want to be entertained dammit!

But I think it will have the effect they are looking for, which is publicity by whatever is the most effective means. Dedicated fans may hate their entertainment being interrupted, but if so that's a good thing because it will get people talking about it. The worst that could happen is if the protests are ignored.

People do know about the issue and are talking about it. Particularly sports fans because, if they are watching the games, they are exposed to the commentators talking about it before the game, between periods and after the game, They are exposed to it during the anthem(s), and they are exposed to it during player interviews. I would say that sports fans have much more exposure to the issues than the general public at large. If sports events are cancelled the result will be that the fans of those sports are less exposed to the issues during the inactive periods and people who do not watch anyway will be unaffected by the actions of athletes. I fail to see how cancelling sports events will have any positive effect on social injustice and the Black Lives Matter cause.

FTR it is a cause that I fully support and athletes refusing to play will not affect my support one iota. I assume most supporters of the cause would have a similar reaction. Is there any real suggestion that those that are not supportive of the cause will change their attitude because athletes refuse to play. If they pay lip service to supporting a cause that they really don’t care about just to be able to watch sports has anything positive really been accomplished?

Or is the action not directed at sports fans but, rather, is it intended to get action out of politicians and community leaders? That could have a positive effect if sports fans feel deprived enough to urge these leaders to more action. But even there, if the primary motive of the sports fans is to get the games on track again rather than increased personal interest in social justice, is that really a positive thing? I am just not sure that professional athletes are capable of changing social attitudes quite as much that they and some others think they can. Those changes take time. It remains to be seen whether pro athletes as a group can have a noticeable effect on those changes.

 

[Steve]

It doesn't matter what they do to protest, it's always wrong.

If they take a knee, it's wrong.
If they stop playing, it's wrong.
If they wear a protest sign/shirt/ garment, it's wrong.
If they talk about it in pressers, interviews or at all, it's wrong.

Essentially, if it bothers the privilege of those in power, it's wrong.

They need to get back to picking cotton just play the game.

Depends entirely on who is deciding what is “wrong”. In my opinion, all of those things are “right”. The problem is that the views of those who think the described actions are “wrong” will not be changed by said actions. The trick is to get the people who have not previously cared about the issues to start caring in a positive way.

 

[Sherkeu]

Many people (even dedicated fans) don't bother watching things like that. And if they are a MAGAchud? Even if they did like to watch after-game shows, they would probably turn it off once the player started talking politics.
....
Not every fan cares enough to read up on player opinions. They care about the game itself, and things that directly impact the game.

It brings attention to the situation.

If they decided to keep their protests to after-game shows and magazine articles, it would likely be forgotten rather quickly.

I remember seeing a news segment with Colin Kaepernick and some right-wing minor news flunky. The same thing was suggest of him... "Why kneel during the anthem instead of doing interviews"... his response was along the lines of "I did that before and nobody paid attention... now that I'm kneeling during the anthem people are talking about the situation".

In times of great strife people need some outlet. If those people want to quit to cause 'awareness' even after years of constant 'awareness', then I think the sport will suffer.

Im my fathers boyhood village, the Nazis were in charge, but the skating and sailing races continued- no delay, no boycott. The people needed it so that just for a brief time, they could be transported back to normal times. the show must go on, as they say.

Who will be that valve for our society?
No sports
No movies
No plays
No concerts
No weddings
No parties
No amusement parks
No indoor dining
No travel......

Many are isolated without family near.
Do you think they will appreciate hearing for the umpteenth time that they need to be 'aware" of racism? Is there someone who has not heard it yet who would have some epiphany of change because basketball is cancelled??

 

[thaiboxerken]

Depends entirely on who is deciding what is “wrong”. In my opinion, all of those things are “right”. The problem is that the views of those who think the described actions are “wrong” will not be changed by said actions. The trick is to get the people who have not previously cared about the issues to start caring in a positive way.

My point is that those who think the described actions are wrong will not change their minds for any reason. They just want athletes to shut up and play.

 

[Stacyhs]

I don't know where to put this, but I'll put it here:
Utah Congressional Candidate Burgess Owens at the RNC claimed that popular members of Congress promote the same socialism his father fought in World War II.
And it wasn't over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, either.

Who was his father fighting in WWII? The Swedes?

Funny thing I came across when looking up Burgess Owens:

Mural celebrating influential Utah women unveiled on Women’s Equality Day

Equality and Women in UTAH?

 

[pgwenthold]

It doesn't matter what they do to protest, it's always wrong.

If they take a knee, it's wrong.
If they stop playing, it's wrong.
If they wear a protest sign/shirt/ garment, it's wrong.
If they talk about it in pressers, interviews or at all, it's wrong.

Essentially, if it bothers the privilege of those in power, it's wrong.

They need to get back to picking cotton just play the game.

No, it's "Dance little monkey. Dance"

 

[Andy_Ross]

Trump Retweeted

The White House
@WhiteHouse
US government account
We are thinking of the great people of Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, and all those affected by the storm.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Listen I'm all onboard for some Trump bashing, but the level of freaking out about the goddamn Rose Garden got old for me about 3.4 second after it happened.

"Americana meets Greco-Roman, as if Norman Rockwell threw up on the Parthenon, is the only style allowed at the White House" is something I'm just so over and I'm, if we're being honest, also done with "Jackie" being held up as the ultimate example of what First Lady "should be" mainly in that I think the idea that there's a "right" way to be in a totally symbolic non-elected position gives me the same off vibe I get from hearing our friends across the pond go on about how the Royals "should" act.

******* up the Rose Garden is all part of his deliberate vandalism, it's supposed to look **** now.

 

[JoeMorgue]

The NHL Player's Association has chosen to pause the Stanley Cup Playoffs until Saturday, not playing scheduled games Thursday and Friday.

 

[ahhell]

If trump is so obviously racist, why are his approval ratings among Blacks and Hispanics increasing? Between 25 and 40% approval depending on the poll and minority group in question.

https://spectator.org/why-trumps-approval-ratings-are-up-among-minorities/

https://lidblog.com/violent-crime-driving-trumps-approval/
Its totally consistent with research on this sort of thing. In the 60s, elections following peaceful protests went more liberal and elections following violent protests went more conservative. Seems to have been true in most of the democratic world.

 

[Steve]

My point is that those who think the described actions are wrong will not change their minds for any reason. They just want athletes to shut up and play.

And I agreed with you by making the same point. With the addition that, regardless of the luddites yelling “wrong“, continuing with those actions may have a positive effect on some who are open to thinking about why those actions are necessary.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And I agreed with you by making the same point. With the addition that, regardless of the luddites yelling “wrong“, continuing with those actions may have a positive effect on some who are open to thinking about why those actions are necessary.

Right on. I misunderstood your message but we are in agreement.