S. Carolina Women’s BB Team snubs Trump

[wh]

South Carolina women's basketball team declines Trump's invite to White House

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/17/south-carolina-womens-basketball-team-declines-trumps-invite-to-white-house.html

Another boon for populist domination in the United States. I never thought it would be this easy. 

[vu84v2]

Trump's approval ratings in all polls in November range from 34-44% and his disapproval ratings range from 50% to 59%, with some polls suggesting that the vast majority of disapproval is 'strongly disapprove'. That data does not seem to support domination, but Trump and many of his supporters seem to deny data that conflicts with what they want to believe (even if the data comes from polling sources associated with conservative institutions).

[usc4valpo]

i would be careful about the validity of these polls. Remember, all polls except for the University of Southern California poll predicted a decisive Clinton win.

The South Carolina women's team should be ashamed of themselves and the university should be embarrassed. Trump won the election fairly, and the events from the past year have proven that.  If you want to see corruption, talk a look at how Clinton won the Democratic nomination.  Agree or disagree with him, Trump is president and for any president, an invitation to the White House is an honor.

[VULB#62]

And the wonderful thing about America is that, whether it is an honor (real or perceived) or not,  any of our citizens still have the right to not go.

[usc4valpo]

62 - you are very correct, they have the right to do what they want, but we also have the right to evaluate their decision.

[valpopal]

62 - you are very correct, they have the right to do what they want, but we also have the right to evaluate their decision.

... as the NFL is discovering.

[VULB#62]

Absolutely. As long as that right continues to be preserved.

62 - you are very correct, they have the right to do what they want, but we also have the right to evaluate their decision.

... as the NFL is discovering.

62 - you are very correct, they have the right to do what they want, but we also have the right to evaluate their decision.

[vu84v2]

i would be careful about the validity of these polls. Remember, all polls except for the University of Southern California poll predicted a decisive Clinton win.

The South Carolina women's team should be ashamed of themselves and the university should be embarrassed. Trump won the election fairly, and the events from the past year have proven that.  If you want to see corruption, talk a look at how Clinton won the Democratic nomination.  Agree or disagree with him, Trump is president and for any president, an invitation to the White House is an honor.

Well...the group of polls that I reference was a wide range of polls that ranged from conservative to liberal sources. I would agree that the polls in the election missed things - but what they really missed was the impact in two or three specific states.

Trump won....no argument. However, Trump has been a disgrace as President. No moral compass, no effective leadership, etc. etc. Clinton did have major issues, but even if the issues with the Democratic nomination are true, that does not justify the poor leadership of Trump (trying to make that justification is engaging in 'whataboutism' - which is not a valid argument).

I have no problem with the South Carolina players deciding not to go to the White House. Remember, Trump's childish and fragile ego causes him to believe that everyone that comes to the White House is endorsing how great he is as President. Everything is about him.

[usc4valpo]

I think you have to have an ego if you want to be President. Trump certainly that's an ego and shows it and admits it. The Clintons have huge egos also, and after her responses of late I thank God she is not president.

I guess my question is what Trump has done morally wrong since he has been President.

[vu84v2]

Stating something that may be bad about Clinton does not justify that Trump is an effective leader. That is whataboutism and that is dangerously rampant, on both sides, in this country.

I could list some things that he has done that are morally questionable (excessive use of Twitter, not condemning nazis and white nationalists in Virginia). However, my point is that he has no moral or ethical foundation on which he builds his government. He only seems interested in 'winning' and being able to proclaim that he is personally responsible for a win, not in driving the country forward. Admirable marketing  of himself, but not effective leadership.

[usc4valpo]

I respect what you are saying. This situation also occurred where we have truly poor presidential candidates and a very polarized nation.

[VULB#62]

Polarized like never before in the modern era.  I say modern era, because we did have this little thing called the civil war and reconstruction back about 157 years ago.

Instead of pulling the country together and moving it foward, the current administration is compounding, expanding and leveraging that divide at every turn.  And it is getting us nowhere as a nation.  The man says he is all about being a winner.  But that really is not accurate.  He is all about winning each encounter (be it little or large) solely on his arbitrary and oftentimes misinformed terms.  For example, everybody is in favor of tax reform.  But massive tax cuts just for corporations and the wealthy is not the simple answer. There is no simple answer.  His supporters would argue that it's the Democrats and some Republicans who are at fault for standing in his way.  No.  A great leader works with people and would find ways to involve and win over those who disagree with him.  An autocrat dictates and does not accept any deviations.  So, he attacks anyone and any institution that does not fall in line with his narrow and often changing standards and, rather than drawing people closer together, he further alienates instead. 

What he fails to realize is that presidents are not judged on victories in individual battles; they are judged on their full body of work -- and, so far in almost a full year, there is no tangible body of work to even judge, because he in incapable of leading a large, culturally and economically diverse nation (his only context is wealth and a wealthy family-held real estate empire that grew on the back of intimidation and the absence of business ethics -- all documented). He fails to understand that in the end, based on his overall body of work, he is risking going down as the worst president in the eyes of most of the world as well as in this country's history -- the ultimate loser of all time.

It does not have to be this way.  Lines in the sand can be smoothed over and dialogue can take place, but it takes a suitable environment and a leader open to that dialogue  for that to happen. 

[bbtds]

I think you have to have an ego if you want to be President. Trump certainly that's an ego and shows it and admits it. The Clintons have huge egos also, and after her responses of late I thank God she is not president.

I guess my question is what Trump has done morally wrong since he has been President.

Maybe lying about getting the Russians to help him win the election should morally impact the very fact that he is president in the first place. We will see how this turns out.

[usc4valpo]

Yep we will see if that makes a difference.

[usc4valpo]

Well we found out that the report was wrong and the reporter is on leave.