Bizarre, Media, Politics, Society

“Hamilton” Performance Interrupted By Boos Directed At Pence Followed By Statement From The Cast

playbill_from_the_original_broadway_production_of_hamiltonVice President Mike Pence decided to take a break from the work on the transition to attend the award-winning musical “Hamilton.” In a remarkably classless and rude demonstration, audience members booed the Vice President-elect both upon his arrival and then at various points in the performance. The cast then read a statement to Pence about fears over the expected policies of the Trump Administration.

The booing of the incoming Vice President was, in my view, uncivil and uncalled for at a performance on Broadway. I would have felt the same way if this was the treatment given Hillary Clinton. Adults in a civil society should demonstrate a level of respect and self-restraint. This was not an appropriate forum for such conduct.

I also have objections to the statement read to Pence by the cast. Cast members had already come out in support of Clinton. That is well known (here and here). The audience, particularly Pence, did not pay to attend the performance to receive a political statement — a statement loaded with implied criticism for someone who was effectively a captive audience.

Cast member Brandon Victor Dixon stated:

Vice President-elect Pence, welcome. Thank you for joining us at Hamilton: An American Musical. We are the diverse America who are alarmed and anxious that your new administration will not protect us, our planet, our children, our parents, or defend us and uphold our inalienable rights. We hope this show has inspired you to uphold our American values, and work on behalf of all of us. Thank you.

I do not view the otherwise respectful statement as outrageous and I entirely understand the concerns that led to the content.  (Ironically, we previously discussed the controversy over the musical barring non-white performers from the cast).

However, I do not believe it is appropriate or fair to Pence in this context. Moreover, the performance speaks for itself. It is, if anything, reduced in its poignancy for Pence by converting it into a type of public lecture — particularly after the rude booing from the audience. The question is what such a statement accomplished beyond a cathartic moment for the cast or audience. It was certain to have an adverse impact on Pence after his treatment during the performance.

President-Elect Trump responded with one of his signature tweets, condemning the demonstration.  Dixon responded by saying “Conversation is not harassment, sir.”   Of course, it is not much of a conversation when you are reading a statement (in front of an overtly hostile crowd) to someone who simply came to watch your show.

220px-alexander_hamilton_portrait_by_john_trumbull_1806Of course, Hamilton saw such tendencies in his time:

“Men are rather reasoning than reasonable animals, for the most part governed by the impulse of passion.”

What do you think?

Update:  Pence had a classy response to the demonstration from the audience.  He said “Hamilton is just an incredible production and incredibly talented people. It was a real joy to be there.”  He also said that, when they were met by booing, “I nudged my kids and reminded them, that’s what freedom sounds like.” He said that there was no need for an apology over the incident.

 

461 thoughts on ““Hamilton” Performance Interrupted By Boos Directed At Pence Followed By Statement From The Cast”

  1. Very proud of these actors. I considered their statement to be extremely polite and restrained. Elected officials should expect that they will hear from the people they represent in a variety of places and in many forms. If you consider this behavior to be not nice, what have you to say about Pence’s behavior toward women and gay people? He should be ashamed.

    1. Was it classless and rude? Yes. Did they have a constitutional right to boo Pence? Yes

      Was the statement by the cast not “appropriate or fair to Pence in this context.” Obviously JT and others here have the opinion that it was. Was it a constitutionally protected form of expression. Absolutely. I believe that it is frequently a rather weak position to take that free speech should take a subordinate position to fairness and appropriateness of place or time. Of course, each instance must be judged on its own. In this instance I do not agree that fairness and appropriateness were sufficient cause for the crew to silence themselves.

        1. Praire Rose…
          -Unfortunately, high profile political candidates and office holders ( and” Pres.& VP elect”) find their activities and movement very restricted.
          That may be why Hillary and Kaine didn’t rush out to attend a NASCAR event or a Ted Nugent c

        2. Praire Rose…
          -Unfortunately, high profile political candidates and office holders ( and” Pres.& VP elect”) find their activities and movement very restricted.
          That may be why Hillary and Kaine didn’t rush out to attend a NASCAR event or a Ted Nugent concert.
          Going forward, I don’t think Trump or Kaine will attended plays, concert, etc. where
          free lectures might be thrown in.

          1. “Hillary and Kaine didn’t rush out to attend a NASCAR event or a Ted Nugent concert.”

            The closest they will ever likely come to attending a NASCAR race would be watching the Pixar movie Cars. It just isn’t their thing.

        3. I agree that they were rude, but not in my opinion rude enough to warrant my joining the chorus that is criticizing them. As rude as it was, they booed him only when he entered the theater and before the performance started. They didn’t boo him during the performance, so he did at least get to enjoy the performance, assuming of course that he actually liked the play.

          1. dogfightwithdogma – NY went for Hillary. They are still grieving. They are lashing out.

  5. “The question is what such a statement accomplished beyond a cathartic moment for the cast or audience.”

    Why is this an important question? So what if it accomplished nothing other than providing a cathartic moment for the cast and those in the audience who approved of the statement. It is actually too early to know with any certainty what the reading of the statement may have accomplished. Certainly it should have provided evidence to Pence that his and Trump’s planned policies are not acceptable to at least these few citizens and voters. This is a message that Pence and Trump need to hear every now and then, so they don’t forget that a majority of those voters who cast a ballot do not support most of Pence’s and Trumps plans. And did not Trump, in his concession speech, essentially say he wants to hear from those who did vote for him. So now Pence has the opportunity to report to Trump what some of those voters had to say.

  6. The audience booing Pence were rude & the lecture from the actors was disingenuous. Just like they had a message for the vice president elect, I have a message for them, “get over yourselves.” Guess their moms never told them to “always stay humble and kind.”

  7. The left earned nothing from their loss of the Presidency, House, Senate, majority of Governor seats and most state legislatures.
    You retained the entertainment, education, and media.
    For now.

    Enjoy yourselves.
    While you’re distracted by these petty tantrums, Trump has been picking people to implement his policies.

    Yes, we know you hate us.
    We will respond in kind.
    And no, it won’t be fun.

          1. I’m in an obnoxious mood my steak turned out ok but the potato I didn’t order was raw and the salad was…..wilted with fuzz growing.

            So…..The propery spelling of Nancy or is it an i is Benita Pelosillyni and that should tell you everything you need to know except she can’t Reid.

    2. The last three lines lead me to believe you are a Constitutional Centrist and moderate. Well not all of us are completely moderate. But we’re still Constitutionalists and that means we are the center.

    3. “Yes, we know you hate us.
      We will respond in kind.
      And no, it won’t be fun.”

      Please do not return evil with evil. It will not improve matters.

  8. “The audience, particularly Pence, did not pay to attend the performance to receive a political statement — a statement loaded with implied criticism for someone who was effectively a captive audience.”

    So Pence and the audience got more than they paid for. Seems to me that they got a good deal.

    As for the audience, it appears that the clapping following the reading of the statement indicates that some of the audience had no objection to the statement.

    Pence was a captive audience? That is really stretching the meaning of that phrase given that Pence had already left the theater area itself and was in the hallway headed for the exit when he voluntarily stopped and choose to stay in the hallway to listen to the statement. He could have continued on and exited the theater and had not gotten less than what he had paid for since the statement was read after the performance had ended.

  9. Had any of the hecklers, or their supporters for that matter, shown any consideration for the rest of the audience who just wanted to watch the performance in peace? Such arrogance.

      1. You know what? If I want to get preached at, I’ll go to church. I don’t appreciate some stupid twerp preaching at me when I go to a play or something. It don’t make it right just because one might agree with the message.

        You want me to send some Jehovah’s Witnesses to your local Starbucks? Sooo they can tell you about the 144,000 whatever while you’re trying to drink your Venti Chai Latte and chomp on a biscotti. Didn’t think so.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

          1. No you won’t. Because like everybody else, you like to drink your coffee and read your paper in peace. If you get accosted a few times. you will just change coffee shops. Or call the cops. And don’t try to tell me how well you Leftists take dissent, because you don’t. YOU are the guys who boot conservative speakers off college campuses.

            And oh, isn’t it you guys who want the “safe spaces???”

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

              1. Goofs……They boycot Howard Schultz, a Hillary supporter,by buying more Starbucks coffee and writing Trump’s name on the cup.

              2. Hilarious! Yep, and those same liberal sjw types go apesh*t crazy about Christian Bakers who don’t want to celebrate the wedding of John and Bruce whatever. I haven’t asked any of the people at Starbucks to write “Trump” on my cup because I figure they will spit in the coffee, and from the perceived gender orientation of most of the guys who work there, I am not at all sure where their mouths have been, if you get my drift.

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. You have mischaracterized this Squeeky. These bakers are not being asked nor forced to celebrate the wedding of a same-sex couple, any more than they are being asked or forced to celebrate the wedding of an opposite-sex couple. They are merely expected to provide a service to customers who come through their doors regardless of sexual orientation. Discrimination on any basis should not be acceptable. I do not accept the premise that your moral views provide an acceptable justification for discriminating against anyone in any circumstances or situations outside your personal spaces. You are free to discriminate against whom you let into your home for whatever reason you choose. But I do not accept that you have the right to discriminate against people in public spaces. A business is not your personal space. It is at the very least a semi-public space. The same reasoning you seem to approve here would allow a baker to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed-raced couple seeking a cake for their wedding. Or do you support such obnoxious, offensive displays of religious bigotry passing as religious belief. After all, religions was the justification for some of their racial bigotry. Also, making a cake for the couple is not an endorsement of what they are doing. Your moral objections to someone’s choices about marriage do not, in my opinion, give you a right to deny to a couple the same service you would willing provide to another couple — and that you agreed to provide by opening a business and offering your services to the public — because you object to whom is marrying whom.

            2. There you go again Squeeky, assuming you know me or have knowledge about me that you actually do not.

              I would never advocate booting anyone off college campuses. I am a former newspaper reporter, with a deep and abiding commitment to the first amendment principle of free speech. I am about as close at an absolutist on free speech as one can be. So while I would not call for a conservative speaker to be booted off campus, I also would defend the right of those who are opposed to the speaker’s remarks expressing that disapproval. The audience at any free speech event has as much of a free speech right as the speaker, even if the form their free speech takes is rude.

              Yes, it is possible that I would change coffee shops or call the cops. But booing the proselytizer remains an option for me, given that I am an atheist and have a special dislike for those who disrupt my peace with their religious nonsense.

              I am perfectly okay with dissent. You are engaging in a logical fallacy when you assume — as you are here — that because some leftists have a problem with dissent, therefore all leftists must. Probably the most committed defenders of free speech in this country are and have been over the decades the lawyers and supporters of the ACLU. They are mostly leftists by your definition. I am a long-time supporter of the ACLU. So stop embarrassing yourself by making such patently stupid judgements about me based on what you’ve heard about other liberals.You haven’t heard me calling for anyone commenting here to be banned because I disagree with them. But I have read comments here from some on your side of this issue suggest that liberals be banned. I also am not a advocate of nor a supporter of safe spaces.

              1. No, actually I don’t think all Leftists have a problem with free speech. A lot of the older one’s probably abhor the campus shutting down the conservatives. But that is kind of the natural result of a party and movement whose principles have pretty degenerated into calling those who disagree with them racists, sexists, whatever. What else besides mere force and intimidation do you have when you no longer have an ability to make rational arguments?

                Plus, I have always maintained that “political correctness” is an inherent part of human civilization. What do you think it was that made Galileo say the Sun orbited the Earth? Political correctness. What broke up saloons with axes? That generation’s form of SJW’s and political correctness.

                But those manifestations of PC did not threaten the existence of society and civilization. Lose beer, and the human race goes on. Sober regrettably, but it goes on. Lose “families”, husbands, the very essence of sexual relationships, and national boundaries, and then you are threatening the very survival of civilization itself.

                And, since you are an ex-reporter, what do you think about the MSM being a part of the DNC?

                Squeeky Fromm
                Girl Reporter

                1. I don’t accept your claim that the MSM is a part of the DNC. There is an obvious liberal leaning to much of the MSM. I think it is a pretty widely acknowledged fact that there are more liberals than conservatives in the media. I don’t know why this is. Is it because liberals are more drawn to journalism as a career than are conservatives? Is it because journalism has some tendency to turn people toward liberalism rather than conservatism? Or is there some other possible explanation. I’ve read some on the subject. But there is very little good scholarly research on the subject to draw any firm conclusions about this or to make any solid claims about what is the causal relationship here.

                  Everytime someone uses the term MSM I am forced to ask of whom they are speaking There are parts of the media that are conservative, and one could describe them as being an appendage of the Republican Party. So just who, in your definition of the term, constitutes the MSM?

                  I have been troubled for a number of years now by what I perceive as a decreasing objective standard in journalism, most particularly the broadcast media. I yearn for the days of the likes of Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Edward Morrow, Mike Wallace, Ed Bradley, Tom Brokaw, William F. Buckley Jr., Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel. There are just so few broadcast journalists around today who are of an equal caliber to these legendary names. And sadly we just lost one them last week with the death of Gwen Ifill.

                  Todays major broadcast news programs — Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, etc. — are a shadow of the broadcast news media of the 1950s, 1960s and early 1970s. Even much to much of the print news media – newspaper and magazines – are a mere shadow of their former selves. What I wouldn’t give to have a John S. Knight, just to name one, still around.

  10. What do I think Professor? Time for a class in Radical Reasoning for those who wonder what I’ve been referring to in my use of it’s various to describe – everything you need to know to understand Left Speak.

    Remember it’s all Subjective and the stuff of Fairy Tails. The author is given credit at the end. The Boo is in the middle somewhere:

    “Radical Reasoning

    FOUR SIMPLE METHODS
    Self-evident Self-evidence: Any statement containing “no doubt,” “obviously,” “it goes without saying,” or “everyone knows” is accepted as proven. Nothing more need be said nor evidence produced. No doubt it goes without saying everyone knows this is obviously true.

    Circulating Circularity: You can back up your own argu­ment with your own argument by repeating it. The more you repeat it the more true it is. Again, the more you repeat it the more true it is. And remember, the more you repeat it the more true it is.

    Sonic Persuasion: The louder the argument, the stronger the argument. In writing, all caps, underlining, bolding, italics, and exclamation marks add weight of truth to any statement. This is ABSOLUTELY,POSITIVELY TRUE!!!!

    Frickin Fact: Along the lines of sonic persuasion, you can strengthen your argument simply by adding the word “frickin” (or equivalent). People may question what you say is true, but there can be no doubt when it’s frickin true.

    The word “frickin” (or equivalent) is truly magical. It’s a helper word that makes any statement more powerful and any joke more funny. In fact, a statement that’s not funny at all will be hilarious to some people just by inserting “frickin” (or equivalent) in it. How, why? Nobody frickin knows.

    With these four simple methods you can prove just about anything. Combining them is a quadruple threat that can’t be beat. Just repeat an assertion loudly and often until it goes without saying it’s frickin true and you’re home free. Disprov­ing your opponent is equally easy with the tactics explained below.

    FOUR EASY TACTICS
    Nymtimidation: Call your opponent stupid. This is almost idiot-proof because how do they prove they’re not? – Recite the times tables? Name the state capitals? Produce a Mensa membership card? If they respond to the accusation they’ll look, well, stupid. If they don’t respond they’ll look guilty. You win either way. Anyway, they disagree and you’re obviously right, therefore, ergo, ipso facto, QED, they must be stupid.

    Alternatively you can call them heartless, evil, phony, whatever. Question their motives, what’s in their hearts and minds and impossible to disprove. Are you beginning to get the idea? Call them anything you like. Once a label sticks the opposition is rendered impotent.

    Insanitizing: Use the following simple phrase to reply to anything your opponent says, “Are you insane?” In a flash everything your opponent says is dismissed as the ravings of a lunatic and not worth listening to.

    You can also use mad, nuts, crazy, delusional, or ‘out of your mind’ in the phrase. These aren’t as strong as insane, so punch it up with ‘stark-raving’ or ‘frickin’ and it will do the trick.

    Boo!-lean Logic: This is pretty much insanitizing plus. Crazy is bad, but crazy scared is worse. Simply attach the suffix “-ophobe” to the general topic under discussion, call your opponent that and, viola! – they have no counter-argument, they have paranoia.

    Full Stop Logic: You can successfully prevent any possible rebuttal of any point you make by simply adding the word “period” after your remark. A period closes the sentence and the topic because period means the end and there can’t be anything after the end, the end is the end. Case closed. Period.

    Using these four tactics you can defeat any assertion or proposal your opponent makes no matter how well argued or thought out on their part. After all, why listen to a stupid, evil X-ophobe? Are you frickin insane? They’re wrong. Period.

    ADVANCED TERMS
    Seductive Logic: If the parts of the premise are true, the conclusion is proven. A direct causal link need only be implied. Since the premises are true, then by implication any implied causal link must be true, too. Anyway, being implied the causal link is unstated and so your opponent can’t disprove something that isn’t there, can they?

    Unductive Logic: If the evidence doesn’t agree with the conclusion, the evidence is wrong and must be adjusted to fit the conclusion or ignored. Unductive logic is particularly useful as it makes disproving any assertion on your part impossible. Contrary evidence is simply wrong and those using it are liars or insane imbeciles. Or there’s been a cover-up, which is impossible to disprove since all contrary evidence is part of the cover-up.

    Nonductive Logic: If all else fails, call it a paradox. Non­ductive logic is your all-purpose escape clause. A paradox means you’re still right, you just haven’t figured out why. At least not yet. That’s the key – you’ll know in the future. That’s what computer models are for. Let’s see your opponent disprove proof from the future. They can’t! Ha-ha, you win again.

    THE ULTIMATE TOOL
    Power Proof: While all the above methods and tactics are highly effective, there is one sure-fire, guaranteed way to never lose a debate. Which is to never have a debate. This merely requires the power to silence the opposition. If you control the government, suppress opposing views. If you control the money, only fund your own views. If you control the media, don’t allow opposing views to be heard.

    If people have a choice between A and A they’re going to choose A every time. If folks don’t know there is an option B or C or whatever, well, how can you lose? It’s easy as A-B-C, only without B and C.

    You might think these simple rules are a little too simple, too simplistic, too simple-minded even. But they work. Despite what Lincoln said about how you can’t fool all the people all the time, you only need to fool most of people most of the time. Besides, everyone knows your opponents are frickin, insane, MORONS, MORONS, MORONS!!!! Period.

    * * *
    In case you’ve found the above to be too much to digest and recall in the heat of verbal battle, there is another way.

    Win arguments

    Four Simpler, Easier, Advancedier Methods
    Wayne’s Way: After any sentence spoken by your opponent, simply say, “Not.”

    The Eyes Have It: Hold up one hand at shoulder level with palm toward your opponent. Turn head slightly, roll eyes and say, “Nya-a-a-ah.”

    Hand Jibe: As your opponent speaks, hold up one hand at shoulder level as if it were a hand puppet. Work the hand puppet mouth while saying, “Blah, blah, blah…”

    Might Makes Right: Punch ’em in the mouth. That shuts ’em up. Argument over.

    UPDATE:
    THIS POST HAS BEEN UPDATED AND REVISED by order of Comrade Lavrentiy Beria. The underling responsible for the previously published unauthorized version of this article is being dealt with by Comrade Beria himself. You will never hear from this reactionary stooge again. In fact, he never existed. Furthermore, the previous version of this article never existed. The editors make no apologies and deny everything.

    FULL DISCLOSURE: Will Beria is Lavrentiy Beria’s third cousin once removed (literally). He has now been allowed a limited quota of internet digits to run his personal website here: http://www.TerryColon.com.

    Enjoy and use it any time one of the monkeys starts throwing ‘frijoles.’

    2. Oh Plus, I know who Beria is! Because there is a Charles Addams book my father had called The Black Maria, which I looked up and found out about Beria. But isn’t his first name, Yogi???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Lavrentiy. The founder of what became the NKVD. The earlyRussian version of the Gestapo and SS.

        Lavrenti Beria Executed | History Today
        http://www.historytoday.com/richard-cavendish/lavrenti-beria-executed
        Beria with Stalin in the background and Stalin’s daughter SvetlanaLavrenti Pavlovich Beria was a Georgian, like Stalin, who called him ‘my Himmler’. Involved in …

        Little difference but there is some between the National and International Socialists or any of their offshoots.

        That does not incude Capitalists with a Social Conscience such as Norway, Sweden etc. Although Winston Churchill stated in Parliament accept a Socialist Government you will have to invent a Gestapo.

        I put that together after I stopped laughing. Yogi Berra was an New Yorker of Italian Descent or maybe it was St. Louis.

    3. The really laughable thing about this post is that the author seems to think it describes only those on the left when it also describes some on the right, some on the left, some in the center, and some at every point along the political spectrum, including some who are part of the commentariat at this blog.

    2. I agree that he is rude and classless. Yet, is he the epitome, or, in some ways, are those who perpetuate it now vying for king of the rudeness mountain?

  12. I agree that the booing was a classless and rude demonstration. Of course classless and rudeness are constitutionally protected forms of expression.

    1. True; just because we have a right to do something does not mean we are right to do it.

  13. Donald Trump tweet:

    “The Theater must always be a safe and special place. The cast of Hamilton was very rude last night to a very good man, Mike Pence. Apologize!”

    Imagine that, Donald Trump, Mr. Anti-PC, calling for a safe space in a tweet.

  15. Once again, ONLY the left is mentioned. So I guess speakers at the GOP convention and Trump in his speeches calling for putting Clinton in prison is appropriate. Then not a word about Trump saying the system is RIGGED against him and not saying he would accept the results unless he won. Booing such a man is not proper etiquette, but when compared with threatening to imprison ones political opponent, especially when they have the power to do it is FAR more reprehensible. Yet not a word from Turley. Now if the cast had said the sheriff is a friend of ours and he is on his way to arrest you, then that would be equivalent.

    Then Turley ignores what Kansas has done in passing a law to impeach ANY of its State Supreme Court justices who rule against the legislature. THAT is FAR more worthy of comment than this penny ante one sided stuff. How about some legal matters instead of political propaganda for the right wing nuts?

    1. “Kansas has done in passing a law to impeach ANY of its State Supreme Court justices who rule against the legislature.”

      That sounds like an interesting discussion. Thank you for bringing it up.

  16. The President-elect’s campaign normalized a multitude of rude behavior and NOT being politically correct has been the pillars of both his platform and his popularity. He has also demanded respect for his counter-punch style of discourse. So in this new age of Trumpism, it would have been entirely appropriate to uphold the President-elect’s new standards of decorum by screaming vulgar obscenities in Pence’s face, chanting vile catch phrases while giving him a nazi salute and chasing him out of the theater in a shower of death and rape threats.

    Therefore, the boo-ing was an act of compassion and showed way more respect than Trump has shown anyone he disagrees with. While the message of love from the cast members should be seen as a huge compliment since it treated him like a decent human being and showed diplomacy despite the fact he was a major player in an indecent campaign lacking any traipsing of diplomacy. The bar has been lowered, you can’t reasonably expect the team who lowered it to be granted a much higher standard than the one that has defined and popularized their movement.

        1. For manipulating a patron, exploiting a captive audience and implying bigotry before proof was shown for starters. Most civilized folks wait for offending act before being offended. Not this crowd.

          1. mespo,

            Pence’s record speaks for itself. BTW, the play was over when Dixon made his remarks. The audience was free to leave. I fail to see how they were a “captive audience.”

        2. mesp727272 definition of cretin: “anyone who says something I don’t like or agree with.”

          Dictionary definition: “a stupid, vulgar, or insensitive person” (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cretin?utm_campaign=sd&utm_medium=serp&utm_source=jsonld)

          Come to think of it, I see how mespo727272 arrived at his conclusion that they are cretins because it appears that he thinks anyone who would dare to disagree with him or say something he doesn’t like has to be stupid. Apparently he thinks only his views are the intelligent ones.

      2. In accordance with the golden rule of “Do unto others…” I actually thought the actors were genuinely kind and showed Pence a great deal of respect. I am not being facetious, I’m just being honest. Perhaps that makes me the cretin, or maybe I have adjusted to the new standards of what it means to be an American faster than most.

        Ugly is the new political correctness. Nasty is the new friendly. Hateful is the new decency. If grade school kids can line up in a mob to scream at immigrant children to leave the new White America in Trump’s name, then it is time to accept the fact the behaviors he has normalized and weaponized during his campaign are to be admired. He is the new role model for our children, so the sooner his administration is toughened up to live in his shadow of greatness the stronger our country will be. After all, if we are supposed to be united, shouldn’t we be striving to unify under the President-elect’s new norms?

        1. No. Then we will all become rude.

          I do not disagree so much with the actors. I disagree with the conduct of the audience.

    2. Well put. Trump has lowered the bar of discourse to the level of a ninth grade bully with respect to common decency between men (and women). Pence is at least as reprehensible as Trump, quieter about it of course but yeesh, what a resume.

      1. So the pot calls the kettle black? Many of us didn’t vote Republican because we were voting against the left where there is no decency. We voted against the Ding Dong. If there was Hillary wouldn’t have made it passed First Grade. As for Trump. Deal with it. The right useful tool happened along and gained benefit from the counter revolution main targets. Clinton, Democrats in Name Only and Republicans in Name Only. .

        Synergy ignited the rust belt States and the working class and that was/is all she wrote. Surprised all of us.

        I expected Trump to die three to seven out depending on New Hampshire at best. now it looks like he’s going to pick up Michigan and maybe North Carolina Electoral Votes. You know the one’s that count?

      2. So? Let’s reassert what it means to be respectful and courteous instead of descending, one and all, into baseness.

    3. “Therefore, the boo-ing was an act of compassion and showed way more respect than Trump has shown anyone he disagrees with.”

      You are rationalizing rude behavior.

      Take the high road and show the world what class means. Give people the model to follow.

      “Life is not so short but that there is always time for courtesy.” Ralph Waldo Emerson.

      “Nothing gives one person so much advantage over another as to remain always cool and unruffled under all circumstances.” Thomas Jefferson.

  17. So what does Pence want, a safe space?

    He chose to attach himself to a candidate as controversial and outspoken as Donald Trump. He should be willing to take the pushback.

    BTW, Pence was hardly “a captive audience.” He had started to walk out even before the statement was given.

  18. Indiana Gov. Mike Pence signed a law this year that mandated funerals for fetuses
    http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12190380/mike-pence-trump-vice-president-abortion-funerals-fetuses

    It’s no secret that Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, Donald Trump’s running mate, opposes abortion rights. Pence basically invented the Republican Party’s war on Planned Parenthood while he was in Congress. He wants Roe v. Wade to be overturned. He signed every anti-abortion bill that crossed his desk as governor of Indiana.

    But Pence signed one anti-abortion bill in March of this year that was so extreme, even some pro-life Republicans opposed it. And it was eventually blocked from going into effect by a federal judge for violating women’s right to choose.

    The law did something truly bizarre. It would have basically forced women to seek funerary services for a fetus — whether she’d had an abortion or a miscarriage, and no matter how far along the pregnancy was.

    The law Pence backed would have required all fetal tissue to be cremated or buried, an unprecedented measure in state law. The law also banned abortion if the fetus had a “disability” — which would have denied women the right to end a pregnancy even in case of serious fetal anomalies.

    1. Please describe the characteristics of a zygote (a one-celled human being) that you deem to make it fail the definition of a human being.

      Per Caesar and Christ (Will Durant), Rome’s Senate went back and forth w/abortion being legal/illegal.

      Actually, the world would continue to turn on its axis if abortion were outlawed. I apologize for losing my source, but do recall that Brennan’s majority opinion comprised contradictory, mutually exclusive points.

      Science does change, later causing legal decisions to change. How many short years ago were inter-racial marriages illegal, and homosexuality, etc. At one time blacks were 3/5th human by law.

      1. This was the procedure to be followed for both aborted fetuses and miscarriages:

        Indiana Governor Mike Pence signed House Enrolled Act 1337 into law on March 24, 2016, a hulking piece of “kitchen sink” legislation that the National Network of Abortion Funds called “one of the most vicious omnibus anti-abortion bills the United States has ever seen.” Among its 31 draconian provisions is a requirement that miscarried and aborted fetuses must be buried or cremated.

        Mandating interment means that women accessing abortion would be forced to state in writing how they want the tissue disposed of. The fetus would then receive a burial-transit permit and be transferred to a funeral home, where a funeral director would oversee its final disposition. These absurd requirements load additional administrative and logistical burdens on clinics. Further, says Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, “these laws are certainly attempts to shame and stigmatize women who have decided to have abortions. Telling them that the embryonic tissue has to be cremated or buried signals that the state is treating the embryo or fetus as a person.”

        http://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/hillary-clinton-won-popular-vote-over-donald-trump-but-by-how-much-w451352

        ***

        Do you know how many women suffer miscarriages each year? Do you have any idea how much this procedure would cost women?

      2. 3/5ths was because of some Northern states who continued to traffic in slavery. Guess which party? it was all about gaining control of the new government.

        1. You apparently are not very well informed on the subject. The 3/5s rule was actually a compromise proposed to gain support of the southern states for the Constitution. Delegates representing the southern states had actually wanted all slaves to be counted as whole persons for the purposes of the census. This would of course have given the southern states greater representation in the House of Representatives, and thus greater influence in determining who would win the presidency, as well as a greater ability in the Congress to protect the institution of slavery. Many of the delegates of the northern states had actually argued that slaves not be counted at all. After all, the slave owners considered them property, not persons. A motion containing the 3/5s proposal was made on June 11 by Pennsylvania delegate James Wilson, and seconded by South Carolina delegate Charles Pinckney (http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/1/essays/6/three-fifths-clause). In fact, this clause in the Constitution is why, for example, Virginia had, following the Constitution’s adoption, the largest number electoral college electors. It is a reasonable assumption that all the Southern states had, as a consequence of this compromise, a greater number of electors than they would have had without the inclusion of the slaves using this rule. So you are wrong to claim that the 3/5s clause was included in the Constitution because Northern states wanted to protect their interests in the slave trade. Also, it should be noted that the bulk of the anti-slavery movement was centered in the north and that a far greater number of its activists were northerners.

          Also, the continued smearing of Democrats of today with the practices of what would have passed as Democrats in the distant past is a logical fallacy, given that the Democratic Party of today is very different from what might or could be labeled as the Democratic Party of the period prior to the Civil War. First, there was no actual Democratic Party during this time. As you should know the first political parties were the Federalists and Anti-Federalists. It is simply poor logic to attempt to draw an equivalence between these two early parties and today’s Democratic and Republican parties. It is true that once these two party labels did come into use, Republicans were associated with opposition to slavery and Democrats with support of slavery. But again, it is a logical fallacy and simply sloppy thinking to attempt to make an equivalence between the Republican and Democratic Parties of the post-Civil War period and these two parties today. In many ways, these two parties have flip-flopped, with today’s Democratic Party holding views that were once associated with Republicans and vis versa.

      3. Define “human being, such that it amounts to a `person’ for purposes of the United States Constitution” and we’ll talk. Failing that, your rhetorical ploy is merely a classic “begging the question” fallacy — assuming as proven that which is the focus of the controversy, in other words.

        1. Richard Turnbull – what I define as a human being and what the Supreme Court defines as a human being are two different things. I am against all abortions, in all cases. I love babies.

      4. Yes, there will either be legal abortions or illegal abortions; I suppose you propose to jail the women and their doctors, too. Religious fanatics are the scum of the earth, in all eras, in all places, and likely throughout any possible civilizations implied by certain values in the Drake Equation. Discuss.

    2. The law did not require a funeral for fetuses. It did require respectful disposal of these human remains by either cremation or burial, rather than allow them to be thrown in the trash. There was no ceremony of any sort required, although parents might request one.

      1. Sierra Rose,

        My reply posted above was a response to your comment. Sorry that I posted it in the wrong place.

  20. Hamilton was a Socialist of his time, known for wanting more government control. Jefferson was a Libertarian of that time, wanting to limit government to as little as necessary. With a slightly different mix, politics in Washington is still about the same today.

    1. And Hancock was a kind of Trump, selling to the British, whomever. He and his uncle outfitted the British fleet that expelled the Acadians, drowning about a thousand as they were stripped of the lands they owned and farmed for over two hundred years, just to make a point. I wonder just where Trump gets his money: Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Iran… One thing is for sure and this is a fact, Trump’s little fish mouth is going to need stretching as he talks out of both sides of it.

      1. Trump University fraud case settled for $25 million — the precedents already set by the history of Trump’s business dealings, such as hiring a contractor to install pianos in his casino and then refusing to honor the terms of the contract, knowing that the victim of his wiles could not afford litigation — indicates the flim-flam crookery and chicanery now fecklessly installed in the Oval Office.
        Meanwhile, the same election fraudsters who stole the presidential election {see “Did the GOP Strip & Flip the 2016 Selection?” by law professor and election fraud expert Bob Fitrakis, and Harvey Wasserman, at the Columbus Free Press site, and “The Best Democracy Money Can Buy” at grepalast dot com, etc. as well as trustvote dot org) are pushing the preposterous lie that the Trump-Pence election fraud constitutes a “mandate”! These liars have no moral compass, no sense of Rawlsian justice-as-fairness, and would pick your pocket while singing praises of Jesus and the Saints!

Comments are closed.