make an argument in support of the 60+ members of congress who are protesting Trump's inauguration with their boycott?
Will anybody here
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
More convenient to watch the ceremony on television in a warm room while sipping a favorite beverage than spending several hours battling the crowd and chilly weather.
I would bet before the flap between Trump and Lewis a good many Congressmen stayed away without being noticed. Now with the media looking for malcontents, it will be harder to stay away unnoticed.
I would bet before the flap between Trump and Lewis a good many Congressmen stayed away without being noticed. Now with the media looking for malcontents, it will be harder to stay away unnoticed.
Last edited:
I don't buy your convenience argument. Members of congress have choice seats a short walk from their offices. I also don't buy your argument about a "good many" Congressmen previously staying away without being noticed. Anybody who wasn't there to watch the first African American take the oath would have been noticed and it would have been a huge deal.
Finally, the Democrats are deliberately making a spectacle of their boycott. This isn't remotely about a matter of convenience.
This sums it up for me.
I have also decided not to attend the inauguration.
But, then, I didn't go to the prior two, as well .....
This is also this wretched administration's last full day. Let's hope they don't screw it up too much. After Bradley Manning, they might just throw open the doors as a going-away shot.
I've thought about the question, would I go if I were in congress? The answer is one respects the office even if they don't respect the office holder. So I don't have a great defense, except to say that I may disagree with them but I respect their right to boycott. If one feels so strongly in a position, they should do what their heart tells them to do.
I don't buy your convenience argument. Members of congress have choice seats a short walk from their offices. I also don't buy your argument about a "good many" Congressmen previously staying away without being noticed. Anybody who wasn't there to watch the first African American take the oath would have been noticed and it would have been a huge deal.
Finally, the Democrats are deliberately making a spectacle of their boycott. This isn't remotely about a matter of convenience.
This sums it up for me.
CoH, you said make an argument for not attending, you didn't say make a good argument.
Talking about "rights" comes nowhere close to answering this question. People have a right to do thousands of things, but the existence of a "right" is not the metric with which an elected official should guide their conduct. Public duties beget public responsibility. A grown-up and responsible public official will recognize obligations to the institutions they serve that go well above and well beyond their individual rights.
Perhaps your clue is in how the first black president was treated by most on the right. Come to think of it, the orange one lead the campaign against BO for many years by claiming he was not born in the U.S. and thus not a legitimate president.
I guess paybacks are a bitch. Deal with it.
At present there are 114 judicial vacancies, including the Supreme Court. If you want to wag your finger at someone I suggest starting with those who are failing their public duties not those who don't want to witness the ceremonial portion of a train wreck.
Good lord.
You are talking about a private citizen. I am talking about public officials.
If these boycotting left wing morons can't think of a better way to express their opinions than a churlish boycott, we are all in trouble.
Nice try. Saying "nannie nannie boo boo you did it too" is not an argument.
After seeing your replies to the people who responded, it doesn't seem worth the time.
Fair enough, how about this then; the idea that there is somehow an obligation over and above their official duties is an illusion. The last eight years have proven that respect for the office is not required, and for that I thank the Republicans. Being president is a job, nothing more nothing less. Pomp and ceremony for getting a new job ridiculous. If people (private or public officials) don't want to attend it shouldn't be news. Personally I think it should done in the Chief Justices chamber with the video provided to the news outlets and they can run it on the news or not.
All politics is local. If boycotting is something they can point to and gain votes next election, then they're likely to boycott.
How many pubs took their pacifiers and went home and skipped the inauguration?
Legally Trump must become President and the swearing-in must happen for that to take place. However, as far as I know, members of Congress have no official role to play. Their attendance as well as the attendance of other dignitaries is part of an informal norm signalling acceptance of the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next. That transfer is the keystone of our constitutional republic. Signalling acceptance of that transfer is worthwhile.
But Trump will be in violation of the oath of office as soon as he takes it. https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...mps-ethics-train-wreck/513446/?utm_source=twb
The conflicts of interest we already know about are impeachable offenses but the ones we legitimately suspect vis the Russians are truly grave. The values undermined by a Trump presidency are not partisan they are constitutional. Under normal circumstances attending the inauguration would be a way to signal our shared commitment to our constitutional norms. But in these circumstances attendance looks more like a renunciation of those norms. Boycotting Trump's inauguration, while not obligatory, is certainly understandable.
Did you ask that question when Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito skipped Obama's second inauguration? Scalia believed they were "childish".
It's apparently fairly common. Tip O'Niel commented that; "he estimated at 300 out of 535 members of Congress present, was actually “better than usual” compared to Inaugurations in the previous few decades."
It's apparently fairly common. Tip O'Niel commented that; "he estimated at 300 out of 535 members of Congress present, was actually “better than usual” compared to Inaugurations in the previous few decades."
That's an argument. I have some sympathy for the ideas implied in your post. We have come to see the office as much more than the FF's ever intended to be. We have developed an imperial presidency. Our president has more accouterments and other trappings of office than any other world leader. So I'm in favor of cutting back the 40+ car motorcades, the over the top security, the huge entourages, the fleet that follows Air Force One, the need for a 747 to even be Air Force One, and more. But I think the inauguration is different.
That's a good point and I had no idea that the attendance was so low--if it was. But I'd respond by saying this boycott is intended to be and advertised as a clear sign of disrespect. I don't remember the SCOTUS justices or other congressional members being so conspicuous with the disrespect. This is different.
Scalia called "the presidential speech something worth skipping because it is a "rather silly affair."
I tend to agree with his view.
There have been other, previous announced boycotts also. I am less concerned with people noting they will not attend than having a something like a member of Congress calling the president a liar during the State of the Union.
I tend to agree with his view.
There have been other, previous announced boycotts also. I am less concerned with people noting they will not attend than having a something like a member of Congress calling the president a liar during the State of the Union.
A good many if not most Congressional districts have become so non-competitively gerrymandered that a Democrat or Republican not attending the inauguration of a president from the other party might find this derelict of an unwritten duty to be good politics back home.
As to disrespect, thumbing your nose at establishment traditions including respect for the president along with members of Congress and the federal government in general appears to be a popular behavior these days in some circles. The lone exception being those serving in the military.
As to disrespect, thumbing your nose at establishment traditions including respect for the president along with members of Congress and the federal government in general appears to be a popular behavior these days in some circles. The lone exception being those serving in the military.
And Trump is different. It’s a difficult decision and I respect a person’s choice either way. What I fail to understand is why anybody would be unable to understand why a member of congress might choose to not attend the inauguration, regardless of whether or not they agree with that decision.
Trump has made misogynistic statements, promoted xenophobia, peddled bigotry and ridiculed the disabled. The man is a compulsive liar with a history of exploiting other people. He has referred to those that oppose him as “his enemies;” he repeatedly talked about putting his opponent in prison. He has talked about bombing families and using nuclear weapons. It’s difficult, if not impossible, to participate in the inauguration without also celebrating Donald Trump. So if a member of congress chooses to make the statement that Trump falls pathetically short of what this country should expect of its president, and that he has consistently crossed lines that no POTUS should ever cross, that’s perfectly understandable. Protest is an important part of our democracy, and there is very good reason to protest Donald Trump without making it about political party or ideology.
So if you think those boycotting the inauguration are simply whining or it’s just sour grapes, you would be wrong. The office deserves respect, but Trump has consistently demonstrated that he as an individual does not. Nor has he himself shown respect for the office. Tomorrow he will be given what may be the beginning of his last chance to change many peoples’ opinions; he squandered his opportunity during the transition. Trump has a hell of a lot of ground to make up. I’m not optimistic.
You say all this like HRC was a better option. LOL The left would have been clambering with thrills going up your legs if she was the one being inaugurated. Even being she is still being investigated for criminal activity. Funny watching the left stay unhinged.
Only a weak mind would see it this way. The herd instinct is one of the most basic instincts in the animal kingdom. I look for better than joining a boycott herd from human beings, especially those humans who serve in congress.
If you start a debate thread like this you ought to participate in it. You ask for arguments but provide none of your own. You don't rebut the arguments that are provided preferring instead to insult e.g., "only a weak mind". Why not make the case that those in Congress should put aside their concerns about Trump and attend the inauguration?
By the way, you have somehow managed to confuse the herd with the mavericks.
Reread my rights and responsibility post. I could make that post longer, but it would stil say essentially the same thing.
Let me give you two pieces of unsolicited and, no doubt, unwanted advice. The first: take your own advice. The election is over; deal with it. Clinton has been out of the picture for over two months. Your hypotheticals comparing Trump to Clinton are silly. The only meaningful measure of Trump is how he is performing against expectations.
The second is to quit reflexively defending Trump. Here's what is evident to other people: Trump has no respect for you and other supporters like you. That's because he can lie to you and tell you how great everything is, and he knows that you'll continue to kiss his ass. The only way you're going to get Trump to give a damn about you is to be willing to criticize him and withhold the one thing you have that he cares about: your adoration.
Maybe. But certainly nowhere near as weak minded as those who didn't have the courage to speak out against misogyny, bigotry and xenophobia because of party; many of whom will be in attendance at the inauguration.
I found comments written by Piers Morgan, the British citizen, who is very anti-conservative and anti-Republican showing his has a better understanding of our nations ideals and traditions than those Democrats protesting and not showing up. One paragraph he wrote sums things up pretty well:
Forgive me if I don’t join in this chillingly predictable tirade of abuse at the President-elect… The sustained campaign right now to delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it’s even started is not just a disgraceful attack on Trump…It’s also a disgraceful attack on American democracy and freedom. As Franklin D. Roosevelt said: ‘On each national day of inauguration since 1789, the people have renewed their sense of dedication to the United States.’ Friday should be a day when the country comes together, not a day when it splinters even further apart. Trump, whether you voted for him or not, whether you love him or loathe him, is the democratically elected President of the United States. If you refuse to accept it, then you flip the bird at democracy.
And when you insult democracy…you insult America.
These representatives not attending are flipping the bird at half the country that supported and voted for Trump and the ideal that we are a strong democracy and durable to the rest of the world. If the Clintons can make it to the inauguration so should those who feel she should be POTUS.And when you insult democracy…you insult America.
My mistake. I thought you wanted an answer.
I'll leave you to your ridiculous question. I won't engage again to your blathering.
Yeah, you blew it. There is no answer to this. I was looking for a discussion. You shut your rights argument down without even putting up a fight.
I just don't see the big deal, one way or another.
I realize that one of the tenets of democratic government is that the losers, despite having lost a particular election, stay integrated in the country and the system. But I don't see these Dems' boycott as representing some kind of popular disintegration.
Hopefully I'll continue seeing it that way.
Most of them come from the leftmost parts of the party -- which is interesting, given that I think Trump is the least conservative Republican to be elected POTUS in a long while.
I'd love to agree with you. But I don't think so.
Inauguration day should represent the best of the state of party bickering. Unfortunately It probably does.
