I’ll grant that it’s corrupt. I don’t think Hollywood is as vast as it looks, but maybe. But “ideologically rigid”?
No. That is not a thing that it is. I guess in some eyes not wanting to glorify violent racists is “ideologically rigid.” Or being run as a money-making enterprise by a system of capital and guilds is somehow “ideologically rigid.” Sure, it’s like the Unabomber said, everybody’s intolerant of something; but then, why even use the term?
I have no objection to calling them Republicans, because they clearly are Republicans. I DO object to calling radicals “conservatives.” Those words mean mutually exclusive things.
Prescriptivist of me, I know. I’m not ready to give up on language just yet.
Generally speaking democrats don’t take advice from people who are hostile to them.
Hollywood raises a lot of money. So yes the democrats should keep them. George Clooney helped raise 15 million in one weekend for Hillary.
Also democrats didn’t elect Harvey Weinstein president. Republicans elected Donald Trump president and cheered when he threatened to sue his victims.
When prescriptivism requires defining words in a way they aren’t actually used, it’s way past time to join reality.
Sometimes we use a different word than the self-serving and misleading self-descriptor someone wants, because it better describes how we see that person. That’s not just for right-wingers either.
You seriously think Hollywood is ideologically rigid? Have you been paying attention?
Trump, who settles civil suits for fraud more often that some of us change our underwear, has surrounded himself with blatant criminals and is now deliberately torturing refugee toddlers hoping his stupid base will blame it on the Democrats. Robert Denirr[sic] calls a spade a spade and he is the problem? Got it.
There are credible allegations of child rape against GOP President Donald Trump. Former GOP House Speaker Dennis Hastert is in prison for crimes stemming from his acts of child rape. Roy Moore got over 80% of the redneck(!) vote in Alabama despite that he was a known pedophile. But these facts are irrelevant to you, because you’ve identified a a bad donor to the Democratic Party. :smack:
@ OP — Do you publish a newsletter? Your views are so … interesting.
I dont know. Do YOU publish a list of all the “bad” people on the left you choose to ignore?
Yes, I identified a “bad” democratic donor. You make “bad” sound like he was just being naughty. No. The guy assaulted women over several decades. The democrats ignored it. Heck Hillary thought he was awesome. Oh, now she acts all shocked about him. You cant tell me with all the resources she had available (personal staff, state department, everyone in her foundation, etc…) she didnt know!
And Weinstien isnt the only one. How about Bill Clinton riding on a known sex offenders jet the “Lollita Express” to his private island?
HERE is a list of other democrats accused of sexual offenses or as you would say, just being “bad”.
What a joke. If you actually cared about sexual assault victims, you’d be enraged by, instead of consistently supporting, a President who bragged about sexual assault, was credibly accused by multiple women of sexual assault and harassment, and who bragged about violating the consent of young women (some of them in their teens!) by barging into beauty pageant dressing rooms. It’s quite clear that you value supporting this President and his policies far, far more than fighting against sexual assault and harassment.
The Democratic party spent years tolerating abuse and harassment, just like the Republican party. But the difference is in the last year or two – finally, the Democratic party no longer tolerates sexual assault and harassment. The Republican party continues to tolerate it, and even celebrate an admitted sexual assaulter.
You don’t care about sexual assault. What a joke.
Just a second now. If this were sourced by any other media than the Washington Times, who impartial commitment to truth is the stuff of legend…
Saw this on my Twitter feed. Sums it up well:
When was Harvey Weinstein elected President?
If travelling on a jet belonging to an admitted sex criminal is sufficiently damning, that would still apply to Donald Trump. And everyone who has travelled on his jet.
[quote=“Shodan, post:42, topic:816268”]
The Democrats can’t afford to distance themselves from Hollywood. Hollywood gives them too much money, attention, and propaganda support. It would be like the GOP abandoning the NRA./QUOTE]
They should though. Not because of any sort of ideological problem, but one of credibility.
The only thing celebrities have going for them is their celebrity; many are relatively uneducated, most have little experience with non-entertainment careers, but are perfectly willing to speak out very prominently about things.
So when a undecided voter sees some clergyman with a doctorate get up and proclaim something for X, Y or Z in a hieratic tone, vs. some high-school educated actor getting up and giving a profanity laced tirade against X, Y or Z, which one is going to seem more credible?
That’s why I think the Democratic party should distance themselves from Hollywood, or at the least, try and unify the message that the celebrities are putting out.
In a larger sense, I think a major Democratic failing is a dogged desire to put ideology ahead of getting elected, especially in the category of choosing candidates. Hillary Clinton is one example- what sort of thought process chose a candidate with all the pre-existing baggage that she came with? Another would be choosing Lupe Valdez as the Democratic candidate for Texas governor. WTF are they thinking? A state whose voter base is as red as Texas’ isn’t going to go for a gay Latina for governor anytime soon. But she’s the most PC candidate they could have chosen. Not that Andrew White was much better as a gangly, wimpy looking guy who looks like Greg Abbott would just run over him with his wheelchair if White got in the way.
I know this kind of thing shouldn’t be important, but it is. And the Democrats are *TERRIBLE *at it, except for choosing candidates aimed at their own hardcore base.
So may I ask - if we need, and get, “a rude, vulgar, heartlessly funny dirtbag left,” and have a rude, vulgar, heartlessly funny dirtbag right, then just what are moderates, centrists and independents supposed to vote for or have?
If they are the same in this regard then it’s a wash and you decide based on the policies they propose.
If you are offended because De Niro says “fuck Trump” and think the left has stooped too low then you are just looking for cover to support Trump and never really were a centrist.
I wonder if Peter Fonda read that.
Might there be a slight problem with this fact? A short time ago, Democrats all said that they were opposed to big money in politics, thought that the rich had too much influence, thought that big donors were undermining democracy, etc… etc…
Now instead the Democrats are bragging about how much money George Clooney brings in for them. During the 2016 election, Hillary spent a lot of time cruising through California and New York to raise money. That’s time that wasn’t spent in places that ended up mattering, like Ohio and Wisconsin. So the whole thing feeds into an obvious narrative that works well for the Republicans: the Democrats care about celebrities, but not about you. The Republicans have pushed this line of attack for decades, and why wouldn’t they? It works well for them. They’ve currently got the White House, both houses of Congress, and vast majorities of state legislatures.
This is what the top Democrats don’t realize because they’re all living in the bubble. The main problem with celebrities is not their idiocy and vulgarity, though such things certainly don’t help. The main problem is that celebrities are a rich, snooty elite who act like they’re obviously superior to the working class.
Clooney helped raise 15 million for a presidential election. The Koch brothers are planning to spend almost half a billion on MIDTERMS. Think there might be an order or two of magnitude difference?
If idiocy and vulgarity was an issue for your average Republican voter…well, they probably wouldn’t vote Republican, huh?
…at least according to the rich snooty Republican elite who repeatedly tell the working class that Democrats look down on them, which serves to get the working class to vote in the interests of the rich snooty Republican elite. Meanwhile, the rich snooty Republican elite not only actively looking down on the working class but also work to screw them over.
So tell me what the problem is again - is it the reality, or is it the lie?