Going to the White House is considered a great honor for a championship team.Stephen Curry is hesitating,therefore invitation is withdrawn!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 23, 2017
U bum @StephenCurry30 already said he ain't going! So therefore ain't no invite. Going to White House was a great honor until you showed up!— LeBron James (@KingJames) September 23, 2017
Recently, Coach Steve Kerr of the Golden State Warriors told ESPN that the warriors were going to sit down and discuss whether or not to make the celebratory trip to the White House in light of their NBA title. Stephen Curry and Kevin Durant had already expressed their aversion to going, which Curry reinforced during the Warrior's media day telling reporters, "we don’t stand for basically what our president … the things that he said and the things that he hasn’t said in the right terms that we won’t stand for it. And by acting and not going, hopefully that will inspire some change when it comes to what we tolerate in this country and what is accepted and what we turn a blind eye to." Whether or not Trump ever officially invited the Warriors to the White House, he disinvited them all the same, expressing distaste toward's Curry's aforementioned opinion. The Warriors responded with a statement of acceptance but disappointment, noting that their upcoming visit to Washington will "celebrate equality, diversity and inclusion–the values that we embrace as an organization."
Trump had recently mentioned distaste towards other sports-related happenings, specifically the NFL players' national anthem protests. He stated, "Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say: ‘Get that son of a b—- off the field right now, out. He’s fired. He’s fired!".
There are some teams and coaches, such as Patriots owner Robert Kraft, that have supported the president. Others, such as coach Roy Williams of North Carolina – who denied a celebratory visit to the White House, have expressed the opposite.
In my opinion, the 1st amendment is involved with each case. With the national anthems it's clear. These individuals are fighting to protect their rights secured to them by the Equal Protection Clause and The Civil Rights Act of 1964, and utilized their freedom of expression to do so – and yet, they're being punished for it. Those that merely chastise the protestors for disrespecting our nation fail to see that the protection that our brave veterans fought for is granted towards all of this country's citizens. Police brutality is a very contentious issue that these brave individuals are willing to address. In terms of Curry, he utilized his first amendment right of freedom of speech in light of the same cause outlined by the anthem protestors. This country isn't distributing its constitutional rights equally among its citizens, and that is what these people are trying to change.
Do you believe that Stephen Curry is doing the right thing, or is he being disrespectful? Is Trump's response appropriate or exaggerated? Is Trump justified in his criticism of the national anthem protests?
How has the perception of the White House changed since Trump took office?
6 comments:
I believe Stephen Curry is being somewhat disrespectful to the office of the Presidency but his criticism is perceived as acceptable by the most of the mainstream media because of who is in office. Trump's response is unnecessary and somewhat embarrassing but it is what people have come to expect from him so it is an appropriate response in his eyes even though it does not live up to what we expect from the "leader of the free world."
As for the national anthem protests, I believe the President is justified in his criticism. Standing for the national anthem has become a formality ever since it was established as a pregame ritual for sporting events during World War II. Although Trump has no jurisdiction over whether or not people stand for the national anthem, he has the right to express his opinion, even in the office of the Presidency. Personally, I think sitting during the national anthem is a much better form of protesting the government than that of flag burning because it is only hurting the reputations of individuals who participate in it and, of course, does not encourage the destruction of property.
No, the negative perception of Trump has not subsided and I do not predict that it will change until the day he is out of office.
The Warriors organization has every right not to visit the White House, especially considering that they are representative of the state of California, which Trump seems not to be too fond of anyways. I think that Trump's "dis invitation" is actually kind of comical, but people have to realize that it is a very awkward situation to be in if you are Donald Trump and the Warriors won't even come to the White House to receive presidential congratulations. Both the Warriors and Trump are justified, even though Trump's "dis invitation" certainly sounds petty and childish.
As for the NFL, I am frankly a bit disgusted by the league as a whole. There seems to be a deeply ingrained culture of fervent and uncompromising blind patriotism that pervades throughout the NFL, and it comes off to me as somewhat of a brainwashed environment. Don't get me wrong, I like football, but the fact that Kaepernick (spelled that wrong as usual) is not even getting a spot on the roster mainly because he is kneeling during the anthem is an open statement of the league's unwillingness to tolerate free speech. I have never heard a president use the word "bitch" in public speech, but I guess that is a tolerable offense within our new normative reality considering some of the other things he has said. Sure, he has the right to express his opinion, but one would think that the face of our nation would be slightly more professional about it. Not to mention he basically openly encouraged the "firing" of Kaepernick and like protesters. The whitehouse has become much, much less classy since Trump took office
Trump unsurprisingly completely oversimplifies that context of Kaepernick's decision to kneel by ignoring that Kaepernick is doing it out of protest of racial oppression. Trump has demonstrated time and time again that the only Americans he cares about are white people who voted for him, so it's not a shock to me that he doesn't see racial oppression as an issue worth making a statement over.
Trump says that it disrespects the troops and the country not to stand for the Anthem, but he seems to be fine with disrespecting his women and the decorum of his office by calling Kaepernick's mother a "bitch." It's quite disgusting, frankly, to here that from the leader of our country.
Curry and the other Warriors players have the right to not accept the invitation to the White House. It's not that they don't respect the presidency, it's that they do not agree with what this particular president is representing. By not going to the White House on this celebratory trip, the Warriors are choosing not to legitimize Trump's divisive messages that he expressed at Charlottesville and on other occasions. The NFL players are justified in not participating in the national anthem because they are exercising their 1st amendment right. Most of the players Donald Trump is criticizing are black, and the owners of many NFL teams are white. In encouraging the white owners to fire the black players who are exercising their right that is protected by the Constitution and represented by the flag and anthem, Donald Trump is creating a division in a team sport that values unity. Overall, since Trump has become president, the perception of the white house has gone down a great deal, and Trump has divided the country on many levels.
I would like to agree with the first part of Daniel's comment on the changing nature of an invitation to the White House. For the entire part of our nation's history, an invitation from the president has been seen as a great honor and is rarely not accepted. However, Trump has taken a stand where he doesn't represent the nation as a whole like the presidents in the past have. He instead decides to just appeal to his majority white god-loving patriotic followers with every address that he makes no matter how offensive it may be towards other people. Therefore I too respect Curry's decision because I firmly believe that Trump is not my president and there should be no need to honor an invitation from him when your beliefs differ so profoundly. However I would like to express my disagreement with Daniel's second point about the NFL being a place of "fervent and uncompromising blind patriotism." It's not like during football games they are flashing American flags in your face or anything dramatic like that so I wonder where this assessment came from. I will admit to being biased towards trying to defend football because I do watch it quite often but I don't get a feeling of blind patriotism from it. The only America in your face thing in it is the National Anthem at the beginning of the game which is typical for all sporting events. Anyways, even if people do feel that the NFL is radiating nationalism I would still be in support of it. I think if people got a weekly dose of patriotism it would be good for them and it would make us a stronger nation overall.
How has the perception of the White House changed since Trump took office?
Stephen Curry is doing the right thing, by standing for what they believe in. The views of the current President are not shared by the Warrior team members and as due to this they decided that by withdrawing from the White House visit was best for the team. Trump's withdrawal of an invitation after hearing Curry's comment are childish and highly exaggerated. Additionally, Trump's comments regarding the NFL players protest have been highly offensive. He believes that the protests these players are making are fire-able offenses. The players have the right to protest and voice their opinions on the stage they are given, and should not come under fire from the President.
Post a Comment