Yep. Adults who have no problem bringing national attention to children for benign behavior.
So children lose their agency in the presence of banners? Maybe they like Trump maybe they don’t. It’s just kids smiling in a picture.
Those are the only two possible explanations?
He likes Trump for his own reasons. He’s allowed to do that. He’s an adult now he can vote Bernie Sanders if he wants.
Actually no. The only explanation is wanting attention. That is why the hat exists in the first place.
Of course, but that’s not the point. The point is parents not letting their kids be kids. Why the need to bring politics into every facet of our lives? I wonder how many of those MAGA parents had an issue with football players taking a knee and bringing politics into a game that exists for entertainment purposes.
We legalized weed. Now what are we going to tell them not to do that they’ll do anyways?
Used to be that if a kid wanted to rebel against something all they had to do was wear a black t-shirt and come home with red eyes and the munchies.
Now they have nothing. No drugs or drug music, homosexuality, bi-racial relationships–all Okey Dokey!
So what do we end up with? A bunch of fucking Tucker Carlson running around acting like assholes.
Edit: And Bronies.
What have we done?
I disagree and I think you should have included his next sentence:
They’re clearly teenagers and it may have been influenced by adults or maybe not. It’s an indication they did a thing … who or what influenced them is speculation. Regardless, this is NOT an odious act and is relegated to them posing with a sign/slogan - they’re not testifying before congress lobbying for the suppression of individual rights now are they?
EDIT: Is it a first amendment issue? No. It seems to have been handled even handedly and in line with an established policy by the organization they are representing. This should not be national news nor really debated - it seems pretty cut and dry. They can decry freedom of speech infringement - we adults know it’s not and hopefully someone in these kids’ lives can explain to them the difference.
Oh please. It’s a picture. They look like they want to be there. Slap them on the wrist if it’s against school policy and move on.
My problem is with people who see fit to make these kids faces into national news that they know damn well will not be positive or helpful to these kids.
Smiling at a wacky activist and smiling in a picture is all it takes to bring the hate machine down on some poor kids these days. It’s sad.
I don’t see the big deal. Why are we talking about this?
Exactly. This doesn’t look like a hostage photo.
Exactly. Or claim that they don’t know what they’re doing. I can’t discern that from this photo nor do I know the day to day lives of these kids.
Yep.
Agree…and parents doing that would probably be a good start.
Yep … even if they put them up to it 
Hold up.
As I understand the chronology; this was not made a “national” issue until:
People began to yell and scream about the actions of the High School Athletic Association and the School Board as being anti-First Amendment, etc.
The Divider and Chief decided to chime in.
Neither are a bunch of Liberal Activist or Maddows picking on a bunch of innocent kids.
I doubt that; unless you believe the girls, from the same team, in the background just didn’t want to be patriotic. I don’t know why you call them “naive.” They’re probably just confused about when it’s appropriate to express support for politicians. For instance, they probably hear many of their teachers degrade Trump while expressing support for Democrats. To some, that may seem more like a representative of a school endorsing a political campaign than some 16 year olds girls posing with a sign.
I think there’s a difference between naivity and warranted confusion.
Oh I’m sure you do lololol.
Of course you’ll be able to point to specific examples of the teachers they were listening to preach about TrumpHate from NC, right? That would certainly cause confusion if that was the case
I can’t. I haven’t been in their classrooms. I can remember teachers preaching BushHate during W’s time in office.
On the flip side, can you point to the opposite? Either way is speculation so I’m not sure why you’re giving NickViar a hard time when I doubt you can produce the inverse…
Of course not. But I didn’t question why mufasa would use the word naive. Mostly because I know what that word means, fwiw.
If they aren’t naive, they intentionally disregarded a rule regarding actions while in uniform.
I didn’t take Nick’s statement to mean they were intentionally flaunting the rules, did you?
I had a professor, in college, who put the number of days Bush had left in office on her lunch bag. She announced in on the white board every class.
If they didn’t intentionally disregard a rule, then they are ignorant.
na·ive
/nīˈēv/
adjective
Edit: Whoa copy paste batman