I agree with what they say about Trump being trigger happy. It's like he would use all the military weapons he has at his disposal as a FIRST resort instead of a last. Weapons should only be used when every other option has failed. Trump is not the right person for the role of President. He comes across as too eager to show what he would do in some situations. I fully agree with everything they said in that video.
How can you? There's no evidence.
However with Hillary there is evidence.
But you agree with them anyway?
Trump does not have weapons at his disposal which he'd launch on a whim. They peddle the myth that the President of the USA has their finger hovering over a red button to fire the nukes. It just does not work like that.
This is the language which comes from the fiction of Hollywood films......where they come from.
They explicitly demonstrate this in the video where they try to associate somebody 'firing' somebody in a TV gameshow as the same thing as 'firing' nuclear weapons.:D And some people will probably actually believe in the nonsense of that connection.
Hillary has many faults but she's not a narcissistic, borderline psycho control freak with no policies bar building a wall to keep the Mexicans out and getting rid of Muslims from the USA. As she said recently "A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man we can trust with nuclear weapons."
Agreed, it's all very much like Sherlock telling us that Britain should take more "refugees",whilst having no day to day affect of something like that.
A large percentage of celebs are "companies" paying as little tax as possible.
There's probably a lot of them who are secretly Republicans,but they have to play it down rather than be "shamed" lol
If the social wind blew in that direction many of them would probably go with the flow of whatever is current at the time. They'd want to be seen as a nice good people to please their peers and appear agreeable to the general public.
You do get the occasional celebrity with differing views, but you don't tend to often see them in organised mainstream political campaigns like this. Sometimes you see them as a guest on some show where they'll impart one or two views which go against the grain, but they are often at some degree of risk. Most of them play very safe and don't risk ruffling feathers. It's the path of least resistance.
Sarah Sarandon is an interesting one, she's politically to the left but does not like Hillary Clinton and says that she's more dangerous than Donald Trump.
Hollywood stars have gathered together to make the Anti Trump Video 'Save The Day' basically telling Americans they need vote for Hilary to keep out Trump.
Now we know Hollywood is very much Democrat and while I agree Trump is not only dangerous for America and the world- does America really need Celebrities - people who earn millions telling them how to vote? It's well intentioned but it could be perceived as -
These people don't live in the real world and they don't have to worry where the next dollar is going to come from?
You are SO right. As an American, I can tell you these celeb endorsements mean nothing and even are counterproductive. Nothing makes a working class American madder than having some tinsel brained, cocaine-addled "star" tell him or her how to vote.
You are SO right. As an American, I can tell you these celeb endorsements mean nothing and even are counterproductive. Nothing makes a working class American madder than having some tinsel brained, cocaine-addled "star" tell him or her how to vote.
Surely, objectively, in the context of Trump, it's understandable that anyone who cares about America at large is sh*tting serious bricks at the idea that someone so glaringly and woefully unfit for anything, let alone purpose, still has a support base that could actually take him to the WH?
If I were American, that's where I'd be directing my anger, not at random celebs.
Comments
How can you? There's no evidence.
However with Hillary there is evidence.
But you agree with them anyway?
Trump does not have weapons at his disposal which he'd launch on a whim. They peddle the myth that the President of the USA has their finger hovering over a red button to fire the nukes. It just does not work like that.
This is the language which comes from the fiction of Hollywood films......where they come from.
They explicitly demonstrate this in the video where they try to associate somebody 'firing' somebody in a TV gameshow as the same thing as 'firing' nuclear weapons.:D And some people will probably actually believe in the nonsense of that connection.
Really?:p:D
If the social wind blew in that direction many of them would probably go with the flow of whatever is current at the time. They'd want to be seen as a nice good people to please their peers and appear agreeable to the general public.
You do get the occasional celebrity with differing views, but you don't tend to often see them in organised mainstream political campaigns like this. Sometimes you see them as a guest on some show where they'll impart one or two views which go against the grain, but they are often at some degree of risk. Most of them play very safe and don't risk ruffling feathers. It's the path of least resistance.
Sarah Sarandon is an interesting one, she's politically to the left but does not like Hillary Clinton and says that she's more dangerous than Donald Trump.
You are SO right. As an American, I can tell you these celeb endorsements mean nothing and even are counterproductive. Nothing makes a working class American madder than having some tinsel brained, cocaine-addled "star" tell him or her how to vote.
Surely, objectively, in the context of Trump, it's understandable that anyone who cares about America at large is sh*tting serious bricks at the idea that someone so glaringly and woefully unfit for anything, let alone purpose, still has a support base that could actually take him to the WH?
If I were American, that's where I'd be directing my anger, not at random celebs.