Trump's America

[Danny Bateman]

iIsagree, BRB. I've got no problem with them inviting him. Apparently that's precedent for Jambo, and I'm fine with that.

 

But he completely embarrassed himself and the organization for giving him a pulpit yesterday. That milquetoast statement isn't good enough at this point. I'm still going to be calling and saying my piece when I can get through (the phone number for the National Office is busy nonstop this morning).

 

This isn't a partisan thing. It's not because Trump is a Republican. My disdain for him aside, watching the organization used for explicitly partisan purposes, including directing kids to taunt opponents, is disgraceful and unacceptable, whomever is doing it.

[RedDenver]

You can keep saying that but, it's still wrong and all you're doing is falling into the group that is going to criticize them no matter what.

Their statement says to me that they are an organization that won't disagree with power and authority. I mean, look at their statement (emphasis mine):

"We will confer all honors and deference to a sitting POTUS, regardless of how he or she behaves."

 

So the BSA is saying that holding someone to account for their behavior is NOT part of their values. The BSA has a chance right now to stand up for what they believe in - whatever that is.

[funhusker]

 

 

You can keep saying that but, it's still wrong and all you're doing is falling into the group that is going to criticize them no matter what.

Their statement says to me that they are an organization that won't disagree with power and authority. I mean, look at their statement (emphasis mine):

"We will confer all honors and deference to a sitting POTUS, regardless of how he or she behaves."

 

So the BSA is saying that holding someone to account for their behavior is NOT part of their values. The BSA has a chance right now to stand up for what they believe in - whatever that is.

Nailed it!

 

Forgive the hyperbole, but if Trump asked for the BSA's help in notifying authorities of classmates that might be undocumented. And gave them things to look for like skin color and languages spoke. Would we expect the BSA to defer to Trump? If yes, that's scary. If no, then why not stand up now?

[funhusker]

 

 

You can keep saying that but, it's still wrong and all you're doing is falling into the group that is going to criticize them no matter what.

Their statement says to me that they are an organization that won't disagree with power and authority. I mean, look at their statement (emphasis mine):

"We will confer all honors and deference to a sitting POTUS, regardless of how he or she behaves."

 

So the BSA is saying that holding someone to account for their behavior is NOT part of their values. The BSA has a chance right now to stand up for what they believe in - whatever that is.

Nailed it!

 

Forgive the hyperbole, but if Trump asked for the BSA's help in notifying authorities of classmates that might be undocumented. And gave them things to look for like skin color and languages spoke. Would we expect the BSA to defer to Trump? If yes, that's scary. If no, then why not stand up now?

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

You can keep saying that but, it's still wrong and all you're doing is falling into the group that is going to criticize them no matter what.

Their statement says to me that they are an organization that won't disagree with power and authority. I mean, look at their statement (emphasis mine):

"We will confer all honors and deference to a sitting POTUS, regardless of how he or she behaves."

 

So the BSA is saying that holding someone to account for their behavior is NOT part of their values. The BSA has a chance right now to stand up for what they believe in - whatever that is.

Nailed it!

 

Forgive the hyperbole, but if Trump asked for the BSA's help in notifying authorities of classmates that might be undocumented. And gave them things to look for like skin color and languages spoke. Would we expect the BSA to defer to Trump? If yes, that's scary. If no, then why not stand up now?

 

That pretty much nullifies the hypothetical situation you laid out.

[zoogs]

@RedDenver, that's my translation of their statement, to be clear. Not their words.

 

There's no need to get into hypotheticals. We have a very real situation of Trump doing what he did, and the BSA saying NBD.

 

Why so averse to BSA criticism? I mean. I understand a staunch defense of them if you, too, are arguing that this is NBD and thus agree with their stance. But I don't think you see it that way.

[RedDenver]

@RedDenver, that's my translation of their statement, to be clear. Not their words.

FAKE QUOTES!!!

 

Even so, your summary is on the mark.

[BigRedBuster]

First off....what the hell is "NBD"?

 

And...to your last question.....that's another BS statement. So, now that I'm pointing out that the BSA is trying to distance themselves from the political mess we find ourselves in, I'M now supporting Trump?

You really did some amazing mental gymnastics there.

[Fru]

No Big Deal

[knapplc]

Two Senators, one Republican, one Democrat, were caught speaking on an open mic after a subcommittee meeting. At least they have the common sense to be worried.



Senators on hot mic: Trump is ‘crazy,’ ‘I’m worried’

At the end of a Senate subcommittee hearing on Tuesday morning, Chairman Susan Collins (R-Maine) didn’t switch off her microphone. Apparently speaking to Sen. Jack Reed (R.I.), the ranking Democrat of the committee, Collins discussed the federal budget — and President Trump’s lack of familiarity with the details of governing.

After Reed praises Collins’s handling of the hearing, held by the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, she laments the administration’s handling of spending.

“I swear, [the Office of Management and Budget] just went through and whenever there was ‘grant,’ they just X it out,” Collins says. “With no measurement, no thinking about it, no metrics, no nothing. It’s just incredibly irresponsible.”

“Yes,” Reed replies. “I think — I think he’s crazy,” apparently referring to the president. “I mean, I don’t say that lightly and as a kind of a goofy guy.”

“I’m worried,” Collins replies.

“Oof,” Reed continues. “You know, this thing — if we don’t get a budget deal, we’re going to be paralyzed.”

“I know,” Collins replies.

“[Department of Defense] is going to be paralyzed, everybody is going to be paralyzed,” Reed says.

“I don’t think he knows there is a [budget Control Act] or anything,” Collins says, referring to a 2011 law that defines the budget process.

“He was down at the Ford commissioning,” Reed says, referring to President Trump’s weekend event launching a new aircraft carrier, “saying, ‘I want them to pass my budget.’ Okay, so we give him $54 billion and then we take it away across the board which would cause chaos.”

“Right,” Collins replies.

“It’s just — and he hasn’t — not one word about the budget. Not one word about the debt ceiling,” Reed says.

“Good point,” Collins replies.

“You’ve got [budget Director Mick] Mulvaney saying we’re going to put in all sorts of stuff like a border wall. Then you’ve got [Treasury Secretary Steve] Mnuchin saying it’s got to be clean,” Reed continues. “We’re going to be back in September, and, you know, you’re going to have crazy people in the House.”

 

[zoogs]

First off....what the hell is "NBD"?

 

And...to your last question.....that's another BS statement. So, now that I'm pointing out that the BSA is trying to distance themselves from the political mess we find ourselves in, I'M now supporting Trump?

 

You really did some amazing mental gymnastics there.

NBD = no big deal.

 

To clarify, I was being earnest when I said it absolutely doesn't seem like you support Trump. I would understand someone's pushback if they agreed with the BSA that Trump's actions were not a big deal. But you, IMO, clearly don't. In fact, you are vociferous in your condemnation of Trump, which I think is very commendable. And so I want to understand why you're so heavily in the BSA's corner here.

 

We have to be able to recognize falling in line when we see it. Like Paul Ryan, like countless other individuals and groups, they've decided crossing Trump -- no matter what lines he crosses! -- is something they've no stomach for. The BSA alums who are up in arms over this, they're not running the show. And they're not the throngs of boys and young men who are part of Trump's adoring crowds.

[Landlord]

The Boy Scouts refusing to call a spade a spade is essentially saying two things, without actually saying them:

 

 

1. Might is right

 

2. We would rather keep our hands clean than keep our hands grasping the right things.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sometimes, most times, there is no neutral. To be neutral is to be on the side of the oppressor/authoritarian/bully/ethically deviant individual or group.

[zoogs]

https://www.facebook.com/theDanRather/posts/10159072320585716

 

Dan Rather's post on the topic summarizes succinctly:

 

"Bluntly put - and there is no joy in having to say this – he is tearing apart the norms of our nation. So it is incumbent on those who recognize the damage being done to stitch back the bonds that unite us and work hard to muffle the echoes of his divisiveness."

 

The BSA felt the heat over this episode. In response, their statement was crafted to say two things: 1) this was normal, and 2) this was the BSA's honorary president.

 

When so many people refuse to draw the line and put their foot down, Trump's behavior is not merely enabled, it's enshrined as a new normal. All of our most vehement opposition is then reduced to partisan criticism, controversy, bickering, and the like (Deep State, Fake News, etc). That's a dangerous outcome, and these are the little steps we take along the way towards it.

[BigRedBuster]

 

First off....what the hell is "NBD"?

 

And...to your last question.....that's another BS statement. So, now that I'm pointing out that the BSA is trying to distance themselves from the political mess we find ourselves in, I'M now supporting Trump?

 

You really did some amazing mental gymnastics there.

NBD = no big deal.

 

To clarify, I was being earnest when I said it absolutely doesn't seem like you support Trump. I would understand someone's pushback if they agreed with the BSA that Trump's actions were not a big deal. But you, IMO, clearly don't. In fact, you are vociferous in your condemnation of Trump, which I think is very commendable. And so I want to understand why you're so heavily in the BSA's corner here.

 

We have to be able to recognize falling in line when we see it. Like Paul Ryan, like countless other individuals and groups, they've decided crossing Trump -- no matter what lines he crosses! -- is something they've no stomach for. The BSA alums who are up in arms over this, they're not running the show. And they're not the throngs of boys and young men who are part of Trump's adoring crowds.

 

When in the situation America finds itself in, it's easy to get our panties in a wad about anyone or any organization that doesn't rail excessively and emotionally against something, they must support it. And...quite frankly....that's just not the case.

 

Some organizations may find themselves in a situation where they need to just back away so they don't get drawn into the mess.

 

BSA is there for kids and many thousands of kids have benefited greatly from that organization. Their efforts need to be in making sure the kids get what they expect out of the organization NOT....it taking sides in a pathetic political debate that the rest of the country finds itself in. On top of that, I'm sure there are lots of kids who have parents who support Trump and many who don't. Not only would taking a stance publicly against Trump cause problems externally, it could cause major problems within the organization. And.....ALL of that would take away from what the kids are there for.

 

And....NONE of that means they condone anything Trump has done.

[zoogs]

Ah, the "panties in a wad" argument.

 

I think this illustrates my concerns a little bit. Trump isn't normal; thus, it's harmful when opposition to him is reduced to partisan hysteria. He's crossed enough lines that we all should be calling him out for it. This isn't some "political debate" where there's a civil option to opt out. We cannot deny the enormity that is at stake.

 

I think there's something similarly axiomatic about both these responses. For example, to the BSA, Trump is the President, and the President deserves this kind of normal respect -- i.e, we don't condemn him over something like this. To the rest of us, BSA is this admirable organization, and we don't rake them over the coals because at the end of the day they're still BSA.

 

I think that's a mistake. Trump answers to his own actions. The BSA to theirs. They've been put to the test and their response defines what they are offering to the tens of thousands of kids currently in that organization. They've cast their lot. I agree it's one that avoids controversy. And I'd argue to the end that "This Does Not Deserve Controversy" is a powerful statement in and of itself.

 

Whether that's the right thing "for the kids", or a horrifyingly wrong thing for the kids, it seems we diverge.

 

I'm not saying the BSA is politically aligned with Trump. I'm saying the BSA is saying "Trump is America, so this is OK." And we're saying, "The BSA is America, so this is OK." That kind of thing propagates. And so we should take care to ask what it is exactly that we're propagating, and whether or not that's always, unequivocally OK. Perhaps better put: what kind of thing does Trump has to be in order for a condemnation from BSA to be the only acceptable response? Why is he not past that line already? If not now,

when?