Trump finally found someone to sing at the inauguration!

[_why me]

Here's the thing. We're talking about individual choices. I can see how some people think the LDS woman who bowed out is being hypocritical because Utah voted red. But again, the Rockettes who are refusing to perform, the LDS folks who want to disassociate or even resign church membership on account of this those are individual choices that don't require criticism.

I would call it just a little stupid. People have the critical thinking skills of stuffed teddy bear these days. People have been so manipulated by the media. But that is not knew. The person who bowed out got her wish: 10 minutes of fame. And then she disappears from the scene, unless she leaves the church...and then she gets an interview with john, if she has not done so already.

[Guest]

Is this a Red Herring?

No, just hypocrisy. But such is life today...when people are solely guided by false emotion, given to them by the media. Remember the Iraq war and how the media hoodwinked the american people in supporting it? False emotion.

What a bunch of crap.

Since the MTC has sung at other imperfect presidents, it's okay for them to sing at this one?

You do know what a Tu quoque argument is, don't you?

Trump has admitted or been caught , before he has become president, in misogynistic and immoral behavior, by LDS standards. The example you cite are from how a president has acted in office. There is no way the church should allow the MTC to sing at this idiot's inauguration.

by the way, the "media" didn't hoodwink the "American People" about the Iraq war, though it would not surprise me if they hoodwinked you.

[_cwald]

Here's the thing. We're talking about individual choices. I can see how some people think the LDS woman who bowed out is being hypocritical because Utah voted red. But again, the Rockettes who are refusing to perform, the LDS folks who want to disassociate or even resign church membership on account of this those are individual choices that don't require criticism.

I would call it just a little stupid. People have the critical thinking skills of stuffed teddy bear these days. People have been so manipulated by the media. But that is not knew. The person who bowed out got her wish: 10 minutes of fame. And then she disappears from the scene, unless she leaves the church...and then she gets an interview with john, if she has not done so already.

Unlike the church corporation, maybe she actually believes what we learned in primary, "do what is right and let the consequences follow."

[_Jersey Girl]

Not that it matters, I don't think I've given an opinion on this whole thing and it's a bit complicated. On one hand, I can see why current and ex LDS are opposed and I have absolutely no criticism for those who refuse to participate. It's a matter of individual conscience and I applaud folks employing their convictions.

On the other hand, given their stated mission, I see no reason why the Mormon Tabernacle Choir shouldn't perform at the inauguration. The performances aren't simply to honor the incoming President, they are there to inspire us as a nation.

If ever there was a time when we needed inspiration, I think it is now.

[Guest]

You do know what a Tu quoque argument is, don't you?

Ah. That is what I was looking for. Thank you.

Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwiː/;[1] Latin for, "you also") or the appeal to hypocrisy is an informal logical fallacy that intends to discredit the validity of the opponent's logical argument by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with its conclusion(s).

Tu quoque "argument" follows the pattern:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X.
Therefore X is false.[2]

...
Tu quorue...It is a fallacy because the moral character or past actions of the opponent are generally irrelevant to the logic of the argument.[3] It is often used as a red herring tactic and is a special case of the ad hominem fallacy, which is a category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of facts about the person presenting or supporting the claim or argument.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque

[Guest]

Is this a Red Herring?

No, just hypocrisy. But such is life today...when people are solely guided by false emotion, given to them by the media. Remember the Iraq war and how the media hoodwinked the american people in supporting it? False emotion.

Hey Sweatheart,

The Iraq war was started by the last Republican president who lost the popular vote, well known at home and abroad as the "Worst Ever".

Now we have Trump, who lost the popular vote by an even greater margin than did GWB - something like 2.8 million votes.

And what we got this time, after 8 precious years of sanity, is a bigoted, racist, misogynistic, pussy grabber, who is clueless about the Constitution and the duties of a president and doesn't seem to give a crap.

This consummate con man and noted orange haired buffoon committed treason on the campaign trail and no one had the courage to prosecute him for it. He was elected in no small part because a foreign power hacked into the computers of a major party on his behalf and at his publicly declared behest. He is as illegitimate as a president could possibly be - even more so.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hey Sweatheart,

I die.

[_DrW]

Hey Sweatheart,

I die.

Were you in the Corps, or know someone well who was?

[_Jersey Girl]

Were you in the Corps, or know someone well who was?

No sir. USAF/Ret/my wife

It just struck me as damn funny.

;-)

[_DrW]

Were you in the Corps, or know someone well who was?

No sir. USAF/Ret/my wife

From your response, figured you might be ex-military.

It just struck me as damn funny.

;-)

And I know why (as do a few others around here).