I didn't think anyone could be worse than Mark Ruffalo when it came to stuff like this. This tweet is offensive and disr
-
dilat
b68
eyourmind — 9 years ago(January 21, 2017 09:59 AM)Along with self-serving false assumptions.
My original post was:
I don't know when they are going to realize that if most people cared about their political opinions Hillary would be President.
You pointed out by highlighting my quote that most people did care because more people voted for her than Trump. I then pointed out that of eligible voters only 40% voted for Clinton. You then wrote that you were only concerned with people who actually voted. That had not been my point because I wrote "people" not "voters" but I conceded that and still amongst people who actually voted 4,939,239 more people voted for any other candidate than Clinton (including Vermin Supreme).
I might also point out that you are conflating "agrees with" and "cares about". I agreed with Joss Whedon and his myriad of celebrities that Trump would be a terrible President. That doesn't mean that I arrived at that opinion because I cared about their opinion. I formulated that opinion from the beginning of the primary by watching speeches and debates.
Persuade me to waste my time voting rather than enjoying myself.
You actually just proved my point. I was the one debating that most people didn't care about celebrity opinions and weren't persuaded to vote based on them. You didn't mention what you chose to do the 29 days prior to the election during California early voting rather than follow an order from celebs en masse. They said it was important. Remember?
You brought up semantics because you realized you didn't have any other way of defending your own words.
I have defended my words with factual numbers. Lets take a look at some more. lets say that Clinton had chosen to campaign heavily in states she thought were sewn up. She prioritized that above hanging out at concerts with Beyonc and Katy Perry. The "Blue Wall" as they call it carries 46 electoral votes. Had they gone blue as they have in the last 29-33 years that would h16d0ave left Clinton with 278 electoral votes and Trump with 260. In that scenario Clinton is President. In the reality where she pandered to celebrities and hoped average people cared she is not.
Part of that impression comes from you saying in the context of the election, you agreed with Scott Baio.
I wrote:
No I have not but
not
because I agree with him.
I don't agree with him. The most I know is that he was a Trump supporter and I was not. If there are other points I agree with him on I don't know. I don't follow him on Twitter. I do follow Joss Whedon because I am a fan of his work even though he is making it increasingly difficult to respect him as a person.
That's a long winded way of saying that you didn't go to President Trump's IMDb message board when the pussy grabbing video came out. Care to explain why you feel Joss Whedon's lame joke is worthy of you scorn but President Trump's claim that he can walk up and grab strange women by their pussy because he's a celebrity isn't?
First of all I don't consider what Whedon tweeted to be a "lame joke". I am pretty sure had he tweeted that about Hillary Clinton he would have been announcing shortly after he was entering rehab for sensitivity training and thrust into Mel Gibson land as far as his career goes.
Second you will see that up until recently my history on the IMDb forums has been rather sporadic. I was fighting cancer the last few months and prioritized that over getting in online debates.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way. -
preachcaleb — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 06:11 AM)
That is a large margin considering Bush lost the popular vote by only 540,000, which was the largest amount up to that point.
Then Hillary wins it by 2.9 million votes.
Seize the moment, 'cause tomorrow you might be dead. -
dilateyourmind — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 07:33 PM)
It is a larger margin than in the past but it is still not a large margin. A large margin would be the 40% of eligible voters who did not vote at all.
We started off on the wrong foot. Lets stay that way. -
esskayess — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 03:59 PM)
Try studying the Constitution sometime (the real one, not the "living, breathing" one). And if you don't like it, tell your lefty representative to propose an Amendment. That's the way the real world works.
My people skills are fine. It's my tolerance of morons that needs work. -
williamforrest429 — 9 years ago(January 25, 2017 06:09 PM)
The electoral college votes were put in place so you couldn't just win by popular vote,as in writing in votes for Tom Brady or Howard stern and such as America's is predisposed to. So the electoral votes in certain states have higher value to ensure these things don't5b4 happen.To mediocre candidates went toe to toe and the one they knew less about won because people wanted changes in big government and how the country is run.
-
abrady8103 — 9 years ago(January 17, 2017 05:45 AM)
What did Ruffalo say? He always struck me as a nice guy.
Had Hillary been elected Ruffalo would've been nude in his next film.
http://www.people.com/article/hillary-clinton-mark-ruffalo-nude -
HarveyManfredSinJohn — 9 years ago(January 18, 2017 12:30 AM)
I support OWS, but I'm confounded as to why a multimillionaire celebrity could ever be a part of that.
Don't they realise that Wall Street, Hollywood, Silicon Valley, and Hillary are all part of the same capitalist system that favours the 1% at the expense of thd masses (manhood of whom ironically backed Trump, whilst NY and Californian 1%ers backed Hillary)?
The rich of Hollywood so despise Trump they seem to think their own sht doesn't smell. But they're as much as industry built on unfair wealth, elitism, and unfairness as their equivalents in Wall Street.
If lefty actors care so much about progressive issues, perhaps they should have gone into public medicine, social work, aid work, public law, or research, instead of making blockbuster movies for multimillion dollar fees. And if they really needed to be actors, why not simply work in community theater? Why feel the urge to go to Hollywood? -
filmklassik — 9 years ago(January 19, 2017 01:18 AM)
Good points all. Capitalism is the bane of Western Civilization. It has done more to foster poverty, squalor, unrest, higher mortality rates and lower stb68andards of living than any other economic system the world has ever known. And all of these assertions can be backed up with DATA. (But don't try asking a Conservative to correctly look at data! LOL!!)
And by the way, real genuine Communism has never been attempted, and if it ever is, it will bring about real positive change in the world.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."