Jump to content


Hamilton


Recommended Posts

If someone has already started a discussion on the play and their speech to Pence afterwards, feel free to merge

 

 

So seems Trump and Pence and #boycottHamilton need their safe place because words hurt them.

Stolen from a friends Facebook status

 

 

So Donald Trump expected Broadway to be a safe space for Mike "Religious Freedom" Pence.

 

That level of naivete is on par with expecting David Duke to get a standing ovation at the Apollo.

 

You guys... Trump is an idiot.

  • Fire 3
Link to comment


These Hamilton people said that they don't think Trump and Pence could 'protect them." Neither have set foot in office yet, it seems they were trying to make a statement in front of him that he will not be a good leader. It is also new to call our politicians at a play and "throw shade" (if that's the right word) at them instead of just welcoming/acknowledging them. I don't think anyone should boo someone because of their political beliefs, I say we do not judge people by their political affiliations. I hope everything that I do in life is not judged off a political stance I have.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/10/stop-calling-mike-pence-homophobic/

 

Here is a good article on why people are stereotyping that Pence is totally hateful of LGBTQ people. His law in Indiana was not to prevent LGBTQ people from having rights, rather to protect religious freedom. So if a gay person came into a store the person would gladly sell to them, if they came in to get a wedding cake for their gay marriage and the business does not believe in that, the business may refuse to sell to them. It was meant to protect these businesses that did not want to sell on occasions like these. It is not denying them anything as there are numerous other stores to go to buy a wedding cake or other stores will gladly make them for that occasion.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

Huskerman, I think I understand what you're saying. And you're right, none of us regular folks are judged by our politics, because we're not professional politicians. We don't do it for a living. Our opinions aren't our livelihood, and our opinions and decisions don't directly impact anyone but ourselves. When someone determines that they want to work for the public, and represent them (and be paid for it) then they will get feedback - all the time, and in public. As someone takes a national office that's typically going to escalate vs. what they got in state office. We elect them to fairly represent the opinions of the people - all of them. I think it's interesting that the one person we haven't heard from in all this is Pence himself. My guess is that he has had a lot worse said to him in far less a polished way.

 

I disagree with your perspective on his Indiana legislation, and that's not all the comments were about. I don't see how allowing businesses to pick and choose their customers is a positive. Ever. If they are doing that then they're not a public business and perhaps should align themselves to just do business within the church, only to members of their church. Doesn't matter if the issue is whether the gay person is just buying a candy bar or a wedding cake - why is selling to the first ok and the later not? If you don't believe in gay marriage, then why would you be ok selling to me as a single gay person? (correct me if I'm reading your example above incorrectly). I don't believe in pro life agenda - would they sell me a cake on my wedding day to my male finance? Is there to be a questionnaire on their beliefs that any customer must complete to see if someone can do business with them? Seems to me that the deeper in the weeds we go with that, we might as well wear labels on our coats so that business and people can decide on sight that they can turn me away (sound familiar?) If a person has strong enough beliefs that they are not open to working with certain people who hold certain beliefs then they shouldn't be open as a business.

 

I don't think it's all about that particular legislation he proposed either. Some stems from his:

  1. Comments about supporting an HIV/Aids initiative and saying that the money should only be given to programs that are doing work to help people change their sexual behavior.
  2. Being part of a group that came out saying that being gay is a choice, and that marriage between same sex couples will bring societal collapse.
  3. Opposition of a law that said gays should be protected in the work place.
  4. Opposition of the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell
  5. Years of anti LGBT comments as a radio host

And let's not forget - their comments weren't representative of just the LGBT community (I think it's interesting people assume that because it's the theatre) - if you look at the group there are women, there are muslims, there are latinos, there are people who have handicapped friends and family members, etc. I could write a book about the issues that he's backed that concern all these other folks (lack of equal pay for women and minorities, defunding PP etc) as well as his concerning beliefs that "smoking doesn't kill" and other beliefs that go directly against common, known scientific truths.

  • Fire 4
Link to comment

 

Fall in line or face The Donald's wrath.

 

This is America we chose.

The next amendment will be a proclamation that The Donald's name will never be taken in vain. And I think he puts his face on all the money.

 

And that any person staying away from home must be staying in a Trump property.

Link to comment

Here is a good article on why people are stereotyping that Pence is totally hateful of LGBTQ people. His law in Indiana was not to prevent LGBTQ people from having rights, rather to protect religious freedom.

 

 

You forgot about the part where he's in favor of electroshock conversion therapy.

Link to comment

Pence signed "sadistic anti-abortion law" Yes, apparently now, laws that prevent murder of innocent lives are considered sadistic by some. WTF?

 

In other news, Trump didn't kiss a baby and Pence accidently stepped on a puppies tail. How much more can we take? Something has to be done.

Link to comment

Pence signed "sadistic anti-abortion law" Yes, apparently now, laws that prevent murder of innocent lives are considered sadistic by some. WTF?

 

In other news, Trump didn't kiss a baby and Pence accidently stepped on a puppies tail. How much more can we take? Something has to be done.

You're dumbing this down. It isn't that simple.

 

The bill, he said in his signing statement, will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn childs sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry or disability, including Down syndrome.

The ancestry part makes me think they mean rape. IF that's what they mean then that part, at least, is awful. No one who isn't a female who's been impregnated by a rapist has the right to tell rape victims they have to carry their rapists' babies. The woman had no choice in becoming pregnant. She should have a choice in whether to have the baby and look at the face of her rapist the rest of her life.

 

If two consenting adults have sex then the man has the right to be involved in the decision on whether to have the baby and I'm against abortion in that case.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

 

Pence signed "sadistic anti-abortion law" Yes, apparently now, laws that prevent murder of innocent lives are considered sadistic by some. WTF?

In other news, Trump didn't kiss a baby and Pence accidently stepped on a puppies tail. How much more can we take? Something has to be done.

You're dumbing this down. It isn't that simple.

The bill, he said in his signing statement, will ensure the dignified final treatment of the unborn and prohibits abortions that are based only on the unborn childs sex, race, color, national origin, ancestry or disability, including Down syndrome.

The ancestry part makes me think they mean rape. IF that's what they mean then that part, at least, is awful. No one who isn't a female who's been impregnated by a rapist has the right to tell rape victims they have to carry their rapists' babies. The woman had no choice in becoming pregnant. She should have a choice in whether to have the baby and look at the face of her rapist the rest of her life.

If two consenting adults have sex then the man has the right to be involved in the decision on whether to have the baby and I'm against abortion in that case.

I agree that laws prohibiting abortion should not include provisions for in cases of rape as well as a few other excludable situations. But we both know that laws get written and adjusted through compromise. My comments were meant to make fun of those who seem to be completely flipping out over every little article that hits any source and we both know that the machine is in overdrive to churn out anything that casts either Pence or Trump in a bad light. There are plenty of legitimate concerns to be had for either one of them. Why is it necessary for the indignation to extend to absolutely everything?

 

Of course the gay community, which would largely entail Broadway and the theatre community, are not big fans of Pence. Duh. I just found it rather telling that the source zoogs linked would call an anti-abortion law sadistic. Okay, one provision contained in it is not what many would like to see. So, to be against that law, does that require a person to be for abortion based on; the child's sex, race, color, national origin, or disability? Seems like some decent criteria to use to prevent abortions. But no, one distasteful provision gets the whole thing called sadistic and is used to paint Pence as evil once again. Sorry, just getting tired of all the over dramatizing of every little thing. There's plenty of legitimate things to get up in arms over with these two. Is it necessary to act like it's news that the gay theatre community or the pro-choice community are not happy with the election results? Of course they aren't.

Link to comment

Are those communities not legitimate?

 

I believe the 'sadistic' comment refers to the burial ceremony requirement for aborted fetuses.

 

Or perhaps it was a reference to his push to limit the definition of rape to "forcible rape" in abortion law.

 

Both seem grotesquely cruel to me.

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...