They are now running ads by Hollywood actors and actresses urging Electoral College voters to not vote for Trump. Do Libs really think Hollywood actors and actresses sway anyone? If they did, Hillary would be President. I think most Americans find most of Hollywood to be fools, narcissists, egotists and out of touch. Hollywood may sway some under 20 millennials who still live with their parents, but then you grow up and realize these guys are not really very smart.
I think Libs just don't get it
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Hollywood is overwhelmingly liberal. That is a fact. Reagan died many years ago. Ventura and Trump ran for office and had celebrity, but not Hollywood celebrity. Arnold was Hollywood but again, ran for office.
They put themselves out there. Collected votes.
If you think anyone gives a rats *** about what Hollywood thinks, why is Hillary not President? Hollywood is full of narcissistic idiots with little knowledge of our country while living in their eco friendly environment while flying on private jets, owning several heavy carbon mansions, riding in limos and throwing glorious award ceremonies for themselves.
The symbolism of this effort is bs, it just undermines our system. Team Trump were smart and they won. It's over, but let's put our (all of us) into holding him to doing the job and doing the job well.
Nobody seemed to care when Hollywood was churning out propaganda films to support WWII......or when Hollywood churned out propaganda movies about our military (Zero Dark Thirty, Lone Survivor, etc.; which I LOVED by the way). But now that Hollywood is doing things that don't support Trump, they are "evil".
Again, one step closer to having state-ran media and film! Heil Trump!
Again, one step closer to having state-ran media and film! Heil Trump!
Watched some of it. They even messed up the purpose of the electoral college within the first 30 seconds. I lost interest after that.
I can name far more anti-military, anti CIA, anti FBI movies than positive ones. The fact is that some conservative producers and film makers exist. Not many, but some.
BTW, Zero Dark Thirty made Obama look great ( so courageous to make the call to take out Bin Laden). Lone Survivor made both Afghan villagers and one heroic American soldier look great. In neither case did they validate the war.
You obviously know so little about our history that it is scary. The Framers went as far as they could to get this country formed. You are imposing 21st center mores or 18th century values. If they had gone any further, we don't have a constitution. We don't have a republic. And the great news is that the Founders recognized issues in the Founding Documents that needed correction and they provided mechanisms to correct them. Amendments to the Constitution. Laws created by Congress. And as you know, we have changed greatly with many Amendments and many laws. They were very brilliant men.
Evidently, you've NEVER watched Zero Dark Thirty. There is a clip in there with Obama proclaiming that torture techniques used by the US will cease (negative spin on detainee program). Also, the administration was shown as being very hesitant on ordering the strike (again, would not consider that being pro anything).
My point, as you have greatly missed it, is that Hollywood is seen as "anti-American" or anything else when it has a liberal slant to it. When it's a conservative slant......***crickets....crickets***
Wrong, my friend. I watched the movie. I actually liked it a lot. The Administration was hesitant for certain. That made Obama's actions all the more brave.
If you think Hollywood isn't far more liberal than conservative, you are drinking some good stuff. Hollywood makes far more liberal/anti American movies than pro.
This was not always the case. Hollywood in the 30's, 40's 50's and 60's was actually much more balanced, maybe even tilting conservative. What a switch.
Same for the media. FOX doesn't get the same ridicule than CNN gets on here at all. Crooked liberal media like oh....the New York Times gets bashed, but the Daily Caller and Brietbart gets posted constantly as "the real facts"
Hollywood of the 30's, 40's, 50's and 60's???? There was very little allowed to hit the screen then that was controversial at all
You are arguing apples and oranges. There is hard news and then there is opinion. Breitbart is an opinion blog. They don't hide that fact. Same with Daily Caller, same with Huffington Post for that matter.
Fox has both hard news and opinion. Shep Smith, Chris Wallace and Bret Baier are hard news. O'Reilly, Carlson and Hannity are opinion. Kelly refers to herself more in the hard news area.
The NY Times has both hard news and opinion. However, their hard news is incredibly slanted, very liberal, even corrupt. Same with ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, Wash Post, LA Times, etc. MSNBC doesn't have hard news so I don't mind their spouting liberal opinions, it is what I expect.
Could you please post a link to the most biased NEWS article from any of those outlets? I'm just curious
The 91% figure came from Politico, a left leaning outlet. If you just read the NY Times or Wash Post, it is as obvious as the nose on your face. Pick any day, read a few stories.
I read many newspapers each day. I also see a lot that you see as liberal as truthful observation of America as it is today. A lot of conservatives long for days of the past, itscwhy "Make America Great Again" hooked so many. The change has occurred, it ain't changing back.
The arrogance of liberals is insufferable. You believe you are the only ones for positive change and conservatives want everything remain as is. Fact of the matter is, Obama has representative extremely negative change, not all change is good. Reagan ushered in an era of unbelievable change which of course liberals opposed. I guess it depends on who's ox is being gourd.
Make America great again represents to me, jobs. A vibrant economy. A growing middle-class. Respect around the world again. Borders that can protect us against drugs, crime, terrorists, and yes to protect us against lower wages brought on by a lot of unskilled laborers entering the market. Make America great again also represents an education system that works. Upper mobility for far more people. Smaller federal government bringing about more individual freedom. A Healthcare system where I can keep my doctor and pay less money than I do today.
Liberals certainly don't have a monopoly on change. In fact I would argue that if they have a monopoly it is on negative change.
Last edited:
This is what I think is insufferable, people like you who think economics are the end all to government. People who scream at the TV when someone passionately calls out for change because their pursuit of happiness is being mocked or even blocked by those that claim they have a monopoly on what is right and decent. America and our beloved constitution, my friend, was intended to adapt with the times. The founding fathers knew that a rigid foundation of government will break in time. Yet, I hear...from you...how you want constitutional "purests" on the bench, and how we should cling to the same religious principles that were prevalent in the 18th century. I, and a lot of Liberals, want an America where all feel safe and all are embraced by the country they love.
And another thing, international politics is much more delicate and serious than a schoolyard. A bully isn't going to get everybody's lunch money. And bullies always end up getting smacked in the mouth.
So now you've changed your argument from change to social change.
The founders in their infinite wisdom gave us alternatives to change the constitution. They gave us the ability to amend the constitution. They gave the legislature the ability to enact laws. All meant to adapt to a changing environment. What they did not intend is for on unelected judges to create new laws from the bench. They did not intend for justices to be swayed by public opinion when interpreting the constitution. If you don't like a law, change it. If you don't like something in the bill of rights or on the constitution, amend it. The Founders did not create a rigid document that cannot be changed. Do you know how many amendments we have already made to the constitution? Do you know how many laws of been an enacted across this country? Liberals want judges to create law because they know the laws they want can never be passed. The people would not stand for it. If you want to enact a law or amend the constitution, convince the people. That is the way our system works according to the constitution.
My argument was social, economic, and political change. You threw Reagan at me, so I had to dumb it down for you. Economic change that helps close the gap and creates a better life for all (no, not socialism), political change that allows for more of a connection between the people and the process (something you seem to want) and yes more than all...social change. Without social change, the structures that have produced the social ills our nation has faced would never change. Breaking up trusts, preserving our nations natural beauty, protecting the retiring worker, worker safety, slavery, racism, segregation, DDT, the Vietnam War are all examples where social change was needed to protect Americans and enhance the American experience. Liberalism is an attempt to always keep those currents flowing...is it always right? Of course not, but it always embodies the American spirit.
What was Brown then? The bench sometimes must create law. I want judges that help protect ALL Americans, that's all.
I think we're arguing process not outcome. I think the goals are the same or at least very similar. Equality, fairness, upper mobility, equal treatment under the law, access to outstanding education, freedom from crime, etc.
The difference between the two parties primarily lies in process or in other words how to accomplish those goals. Liberals think they have the monopoly on compassion in my opinion. Or at least they act that way. That is simply untrue. Civil rights act was passed primarily by Republicans, for example. Republicans tend to want a smaller role for government and the Democrats want a larger role.
And the courts can never be in the business of creating law. That directly violates the Constitution and it takes out of the hands of the people the ability to govern themselves. How can we claim that we are a country where the people not the government is the center of power if we have on elected judges creating laws that affect all Americans.
You may be surprised to learn that the most liberal member of the court, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, has admitted that Roe versus Wade was a very bad legal decision. She said that's because it took the issue out of the hands of the people and we have had nothing but turmoil in the country cents she said that's because it took the issue out of the hands of the people and we have had nothing but turmoil in the country since.
The legislative branch creates the law the judicial branch interprets the law and the executive branch enforces the law. When they start to overlap and take over responsibilities of another branch, then a rule of law fails.
Throw in the Environmental Protection Act, The Groundwater Protection and Americans with Disabilities Acts, et. al. and you largely have a list of conservative presidents' signatures. As a young person I felt like eons were between the Revolution and the Civil War. With some age and better chronological knowledge of our foreign and domestic conflicts, I've come to believe we're doing pretty good socially considering we hardly ever get to catch our collective breath. Some liberal causes give me gas. If I believe an abortion, at the very least, should be handled solemnly with a modicum of remorse rather than so casually like a trip to Sonic, that does not make me some kind of barbaric monster.
Very good response, I don't mean that to be condescending, it was a very respectful post and I appreciate it. I agree it is about process. I dont think conservatives hate minorities or homosexuals for example. I do however think the "hands off" approach (small government) allows the environment in which prejudice can thrive. You have faith in people to do what's right, that's great, I don't believe that faith to be foolish at all. I think history has taught us though that without a strong central government maintaining and protecting an environment that allows for the essence of America (rights for all, even the minority) to prevail, it will be extinguished by special interests. Look to Lincoln (a Republican yes) who stood in the face of massive popular current and created a better, more honest America.
Constitutional law is more tricky to me than I think you might see it. Brown wasn't a law per se, but it established how a practice violated law. I'm very well aware of Justice Ginsberg's statement on Roe. I see Roe as the same, I think Roe made abortion NOT murder in the eyes of constitutional law. (Let's not go there again....I respect your views....passion and love of life....that's all I'll say on that subject). When differences exist between what majority and minority see as just, the openness of the constitution allows for movement (again the beauty of design....and like a building that's designedvtovwithstand earthquakes....that movement prevents forces from toppling over our government). The courts need to step in to tighten that space at times.
I'll tell you one area we probably agree upon: States Rights. It is a beautiful aspect of our system that isn't utilized quite enough. Liberals need to embrace it more.
You guys have got to be some of the funniest people out there. Blasting the media and Hollywood because poor little Trump is getting blasted.....let's take a look back at a few things in the past:
1. I can remember Phil Collins music video for "Land of Confusion". Remember that? Yeah. Go back and watch it. A puppet Ronald Reagan is the star. And it plays off his "forgetfulness"....especially at the end when he reaches for one button but hits the nuclear war button. Do you remember anyone bitching about that? Nope.
2. I can remember all the jokes from comedians on the Bill Clinton situation(s). Numerous songs, comedy acts, satirical shows, etc......and what was the response? Nothing.
3. Then we get to the 2000's and George W. Bush. Man.....the number of anti-Bush songs by musicians (mainly rock and rap...your younger generation) protesting his presidency, ESPECIALLY the Florida situation. What was Bush's response to all of it? Not much. He let it die down and didn't fan the flames. I admire him for that actually.
4. Then we have Obama and the "birther" movement, which is still going on by the crazy sheriff in Arizona. How many comedians joked about this? A LOT! What was the response from President Obama? Ahh....nothing.
Now we get to Trump. And every time a person speaks out in humor, or anger, about him, he takes to the media or to social media to fan the flames. I guess what I'm saying is that some people are born leaders, some people have thick skin, and some people don't have what it takes to lead......
1. I can remember Phil Collins music video for "Land of Confusion". Remember that? Yeah. Go back and watch it. A puppet Ronald Reagan is the star. And it plays off his "forgetfulness"....especially at the end when he reaches for one button but hits the nuclear war button. Do you remember anyone bitching about that? Nope.
2. I can remember all the jokes from comedians on the Bill Clinton situation(s). Numerous songs, comedy acts, satirical shows, etc......and what was the response? Nothing.
3. Then we get to the 2000's and George W. Bush. Man.....the number of anti-Bush songs by musicians (mainly rock and rap...your younger generation) protesting his presidency, ESPECIALLY the Florida situation. What was Bush's response to all of it? Not much. He let it die down and didn't fan the flames. I admire him for that actually.
4. Then we have Obama and the "birther" movement, which is still going on by the crazy sheriff in Arizona. How many comedians joked about this? A LOT! What was the response from President Obama? Ahh....nothing.
Now we get to Trump. And every time a person speaks out in humor, or anger, about him, he takes to the media or to social media to fan the flames. I guess what I'm saying is that some people are born leaders, some people have thick skin, and some people don't have what it takes to lead......
As a Trump supporter I could not agree with this statement more .
I still agree with Trump's policies just wished he could have learned to pick his battles better.
We all now know how much he was getting lied on by MSM.... I'm sure he felt the need to defend himself as we all would have , just wish he could have done it more tactful.
Can you imagine what would have been if not for the Russian collusion lie .... Adam Schiff....
What's your opinion on the twitter files?