You know Matrix, I would ask WTF you were talking about, but I saw the article on BuzzFeed about Trump supporters calling for a boycott of the musical Hamilton for what the actors and staff had to say to the VP-elect. Much like the comments about boycotting Lego over their issue with the Daily Mail, the cast and crew have the right to address the VP in a respectful manner at an appropriate time, this was not that time or place. The fact is that the Trump supporters also have the right to speak their minds and call for that boycott if they feel it is appropriate. If you don't agree with them go see the damn musical and support the cast and actors. What they did doesn't really effect me because I wasn't going to see that travesty anyway.
|
Trump news the second
|
 Rajvik Wrote:... the cast and crew have the right to address the VP in a respectful manner at an appropriate time, this was not that time or place. ...You have an interpretation of "freedom of speech" that does not match mine. Any time is appropriate, any public place or place controlled by the person making the statement is appropriate. Without knowing what was said, I do not know whether the speech was "appropriate". Did somebody threaten the VP-elect or his family, or commit slander? If not, then the speech was appropriate and protected. I've said this before (with the second half purposefully left unsaid), I'll probably need to say it again: It's easy to support freedom of speech when you agree with what's being said. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012  Quote:robkelk wrote:The Associated Press has video. It didn't seem threatening to me, or slanderous.Quote:Rajvik wrote:You have an interpretation of "freedom of speech" that does not match mine. Any time is appropriate, any public place or place controlled by the person making the statement is appropriate. 
No no. You can say what you want.
But only inside that pen over there behind that building where nobody can hear you. Everywhere else you're where you aren't permitted which is trespassing. And tresspassing is a treason citizen felony. Felonies are punisheable by loss of rights, jobs, time in prison and generally being shat on as one of the 'bad' people. And you're not a bad person, right? ________________________________ --m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig? 
#facepalms
an appropriate time is not after you have finished a performance that the public official has paid good money to take his family to see, the appropriate place is not in a public venue in front of who knows how many people, (I'm sure someone somewhere has the numbers from that particular performance) where they have all just paid your salary by buying the tickets for a performance that is not hearing your political views. I never said that the speech was inappropriate, it was in my mind quite well done, something i would expect to come from the mind of a Broadway script writer, but the actor in question could have requested a private meeting with the VP to make this speech, it probably would have been granted, instead he disrespects both his audience and the VP by pigeonholing him in front of the entire audience and effectively calling him out over what (i personally feel) is over-hype by the mainstream media Quote:the appropriate place is not in a public venue in front of who knows how many peopleI think that's the perfect place for such speech. Saying it where nobody else can hear defeats the purpose of saying it in the first place. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
I disagree, the purpose of saying it is to inform the politician of what you see as an issue, doing so in such a public way does nothing more than back them into a corner, and doing so where they do not and should not have to expect such a cornering does nothing to endear you to them.
Personally, I feel that one of the the perils of public office, especially a high-ranking one, is that you should always expect someone to approach you with their views and opinions when you are in public. And crying harassment about it, after a campaign attitude that could be summed up as 'harden the fuck up', has a bit of hypocrisy about it. Of course, it was slightly badly timed, in that they did it on the same day Trump U made a $25 million settlement in its fraud case, and their freedom of speech has done rather well at burying that little thing. Trump claims he totally could have won, but he just doesn't have the time, but frankly that sounds like crap, especially given he's often stated in the past that making settlements is practically an admission of guilt.
 Quote:Rajvik wrote:Considering the rhetoric the Trump campaign has employed, terms of endearment is not one of the things the Hamilton cast is looking for. And Trump has not done anything to reassure the rest who did not vote for him. __________________ Into terror!, Into valour! Charge ahead! No! Never turn Yes, it's into the fire we fly And the devil will burn! - Scarlett Pimpernell Rajvik Wrote:I disagree, the purpose of saying it is to inform the politician of what you see as an issue, doing so in such a public way does nothing more than back them into a corner,He's only being backed into a corner if he refuses to listen. Rajvik Wrote:and doing so where they do not and should not have to expect such a corneringHe's the VP-elect. He should be expecting this sort of thing 24x7, just like every other high-ranking politician in the last four decades had to expect it 24x7. To quote another elected Republican, "Suck It Up, Buttercup." Rajvik Wrote:does nothing to endear you to them.Well, duh. It's protest speech. It isn't supposed to be endearing. EDIT: An appropriate quote: A protest song is a song that's so specific that you cannot mistake it for bullshit. – Phil Ochs, in the liner notes for The Broadside Tapes 1 -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012 
I will be vastly amused -- and more than a little annoyed -- if the Republicans turn out not to have the ability to cope with being the target of the same kind and level of rhetoric they've slung at the Democrats for decades. Already their responses have been along the line of "you're being mean to us, that's not fair!" Which given what they expected their opponents to put up over the years with is remarkably wimpy. And hypocritical.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
Re: the term limits thing (one of the few things Trump's said that I support), I saw a comment on facebook a couple days after the election, by someone on my friends list, attached to an article about Trump's plans for his first 100 days. I can't remember the exact wording (and I can't be bothered to look for it, because Facebook on mobile sucks), but it was basically "Term limits? They're called elections".
As for the Bernie supporters voting for Trump, I can't speak for everybody, naturally, but I and my entire immediate family (all Bernie supporters) voted for Clinton.
Hamilton is a city in Ontario - a city with a Museum of Steam, just off Nikola Tesla Blvd.
"Hamilton" is a Broadway play. Trump has confused the two. (To be fair, he isn't the only one.) -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Trump is easily confused by anything that isn't plated in gold.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
It's going to be interesting on how many Trump threads we are going to have for the next 4 years.
__________________ Into terror!, Into valour! Charge ahead! No! Never turn Yes, it's into the fire we fly And the devil will burn! - Scarlett Pimpernell
We're looking at two a year, so far ... but he hasn't been sworn at in yet.
So... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-firs ... -1.3861339 in favour of something more advantageous. Considering the only two countries to really benefit from TPP were the USA and Japan, I have trouble imagining how it's possible for him to get something more advantageous. And Trump told another country how to handle its diplomatic affairs. That's a major diplomatic gaffe. -- Rob Kelk "Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of the same sovereign, servants of the same law." - Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
He's also refusing to talk to the New York Times now, AKA the Newspaper of Record, because they're not spinning their coverage the way he wants.
I was listening to an analyst on CBS News Radio last week who was warning about a possible all-out assault on the First Amendment by the Trump Administration, and noting that he was already doing everything he could to avoid press scrutiny, or even simple coverage beyond anything that makes him look good. -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. Quote:Bob Schroeck wrote:Which begs the question, is he hiding anything? __________________ Into terror!, Into valour! Charge ahead! No! Never turn Yes, it's into the fire we fly And the devil will burn! - Scarlett Pimpernell
It's not so much "if" as "what", I suspect. And some of it may be intentional distraction -- was anyone else aware that he'd settled the Trump University lawsuit rather than let it go to court?
Oh, and as I noted earlier and elsewhere, http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/ ... index.html]Trump's doing everything he can to toss the alt-right overboard now that he's President. I have to wonder if this was always the plan, or if someone recently managed to beat into his head the idea that embracing the white supremacists and neo-nazis would be a long-term PR debacle for his administration. Edit: And now he's abandoning the idea of http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/22/politics/ ... peditorial]prosecuting Hillary Clinton that was such a big part of his late-campaign rhetoric. He's apparently also softening his stance on climate change as well. Or so he's claiming. The problem is, during the campaign he showed himself so willing to say anything regardless of proof to contrary, it's hard to believe that anything he says at any time can possibly be the truth. So maybe he's not throwing the alt-right under the bus -- he just wants everyone to think he has so he doesn't start his term already painted a nazi and a racist. -- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.  Quote:Bob Schroeck wrote:The news sources I read mentioned the settlement and how "settling" was something he'd repeatedly said he never does, and raised the notion that his uproar over the Hamilton incident might have been deliberately exaggerated as a distraction from the settlement. YMMV on whether that means I read sources that look into things, or biased sources. But they certainly didn't let the settlement go by unnoticed. How many, though, will pay attention? ----- Big Brother is watching you. And damn, you are so bloody BORING.
Actually, my news sources said much the same thing, vis-a-vis the settlement and the Hamilton flap.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak. Quote:Bob Schroeck wrote: His alt right supporters seems to think so. __________________ Into terror!, Into valour! Charge ahead! No! Never turn Yes, it's into the fire we fly And the devil will burn! - Scarlett Pimpernell
Heh. I'm not entirely sure I want to bet on their judgment.
-- Bob --------- Then the horns kicked in... ...and my shoes began to squeak.
Tila Tequila. Man, I haven't thought of her in years. There's a good example of modern neo-Nazis. Someone that would have been in the camps back then is now the sort of idiot glorifying the regime.
'Strong evidence' you say. Electoral Fraud?? you say. Oh my....
Possibly bollocks. Possibly not. Curious what happens if it turns out to be true. (And yes, I will do the other thing this weekend. Remember, Irish time) ________________________________ --m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig? |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)