I seem to be in the minority in that I don't understand how people can think they can separate art from artist.. acting is a bit different because they are not driving the movies direction, but in general art is about self expression..
Good art from someone I disagree with should help me understand and appreciate other points of view a little bit better. Your artists views are a major part of what makes their art good and to claim to separate them, is imho denial.
I seem to be in the minority in that I don't understand how people can think they can separate art from artist.. acting is a bit different because they are not driving the movies direction, but in general art is about self expression..
Good art from someone I disagree with should help me understand and appreciate other points of view a little bit better. Your artists views are a major part of what makes their art good and to claim to separate them, is imho denial.
That said.. I never really liked rowling's stuff
I think the real question is to separate the person and their works, not their ideas and their works, cause their ideas will obviously be in their works somehow, be it political ideas or whatever.
One recent case in particular come to my mind, as a Quebecer...
Fucking hilarious how people say "don't politicize".
And how people most critical of "celebrities' opinions" are generally supportive, or at least against the backlash against, the president who literally only got to his position by being a celebrity.
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
People can accomplish a lot more when they work together as a nation, yeah. An individual working for the greater good seems like a sophistry.
I have never cared for Rowling or her Harry Potter franchise and care just as little for her tedious progenitors such as Lewis (with Narnia) and Tolkien and his Rings series. Mind you, I read erotica almost exclusively (not the Fifty Shades crap, by any means) and I'd say there is very little depth to these kinds of outputs compared to what you can find in classics like The Story of O and the works of the Marquis de Sade. Fanny Hill would be another one to recommend for storytelling quality in opposition to what passes for literature in Rowling's work. The fact that she can't tolerate people making Harry Potter erotica (which is the only way to redeem such a shit franchise) and then claims to have liberal leanings shows what a fucking hypocrite she is.
Don't really care what a British national thinks of our President, just as someone from Canada should care less what someone from the US thinks of their Prime Minister, and vice versa. We have enough problems in the US to contend with.
Never get to know your heroes personally, otherwise you may be sorely disappointed.
That said, I ignore what entertainers say about politics and real world situations as I don't pay to hear their thoughts on subjects, I pay for their entertainment.
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
Uh no, that was not what I said. I never said that Rowling has to use even one pence of her fortune to help others. My problem is that she wants to have her tretacle tart and eat it too. She hates a man who believes he can say whatever he wants without consequences, when she is the exact same way. She expects to go on one of the biggest social media sites in the world and make claims about how she cares so much about these causes, while also holding the distinct title of richest author in the world, and not get responses such as, "Well, why don't you do something about it, filthy rich author?"
On Goodreads, I even pointed out that Rowling herself would be all over a Trump if one of them did something like that. I even made a hypothetical (an extremely believable one) about how if Donald Jr. went on Twitter and tweeted that he can't believe how little the common worker is paid, and someone responded with: Does this mean you're going to give all the workers at Trump Towers a raise?—and he went silent, she would waste no time in typing up a scathing response.
I also asked the Goodreads members if they themselves would have had a problem with Jr. going silent if he was called out...which they would not answer (no doubt because they had been admantly defending Rowling going silent on the refugees callout).
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
I agree its hard to separate the art from the artist. I still love Ender's Game, even though I find Orson Scott Card's views on many issues to be gross. I loathe Trump, so if anything, my fondness for Rowling has increased.
Originally posted by: The Book Crusader Uh no, that was not what I said. I never said that Rowling has to use even one pence of her fortune to help others. My problem is that she wants to have her tretacle tart and eat it too. She hates a man who believes he can say whatever he wants without consequences, when she is the exact same way. She expects to go on one of the biggest social media sites in the world and make claims about how she cares so much about these causes, while also holding the distinct title of richest author in the world, and not get responses such as, "Well, why don't you do something about it, filthy rich author?"
On Goodreads, I even pointed out that Rowling herself would be all over a Trump if one of them did something like that. I even made a hypothetical (an extremely believable one) about how if Donald Jr. went on Twitter and tweeted that he can't believe how little the common worker is paid, and someone responded with: Does this mean you're going to give all the workers at Trump Towers a raise?—and he went silent, she would waste no time in typing up a scathing response.
I also asked the Goodreads members if they themselves would have had a problem with Jr. going silent if he was called out...which they would not answer (no doubt because they had been admantly defending Rowling going silent on the refugees callout).
Well, I think you kind of answered my question, if indirectly. So, thank you.
I maintain that despite her riches I still believe she is doing a lot of good and by most accounts has given back in a number of different ways (and substantial amounts). I think it is a little unfair to expect her to do or not do any particular action.
Some of this is a little semantics anyway - of course she is allowed to say what she wants (just like everyone else). And of course she knows not everyone will agree or like her. I doubt she has any demand or expectation of her words not having any consequences.
So she didn't respond to a petition from a group of people who obviously don't like her. Which honestly was probably the smarter move.
I am very passionate about child advocacy and children in foster care, and locally I work with nonprofits and spend a lot of time on that. I suppose I could be called a hypocrite because despite all my talk of the need for good foster parents, I have not personally volunteered. I have several reasons for this, but regardless, if someone just took some of my words about fostering in a vacuum and confronted me about not actually 'doing anything' by not becoming a foster parent and taking kids in my home, I suppose it could make me look like a hypocrite. But it also completely discounts any other thing I AM doing. Sometimes it is direct action, and sometimes it is words. She is using her platform to advocate for a cause she believes in, and who knows what she does toward that cause. Again, I just think it's a little unfair because I think she is someone who knows that words have power too, and sometimes the goal of influencing legislation and/or public mentality can be an action in and of itself.
So, setting aside the banter resulting from the juxtaposition of political opinions, what this entire thread topic boils down to is, "Someone has an opinion that I don't like. They shared that opinion in a public forum. A lot of people respect their opinion, and that makes me a sad panda, so they are a poopie-head and I don't like them anymore."
So, setting aside the banter resulting from the juxtaposition of political opinions, what this entire thread topic boils down to is, "Someone has an opinion that I don't like. They shared that opinion in a public forum. A lot of people respect their opinion, and that makes me a sad panda, so they are a poopie-head and I don't like them anymore."
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
So, setting aside the banter resulting from the juxtaposition of political opinions, what this entire thread topic boils down to is, "Someone has an opinion that I don't like. They shared that opinion in a public forum. A lot of people respect their opinion, and that makes me a sad panda, so they are a poopie-head and I don't like them anymore."
That is not it at all. He doesn't like her as a person but enjoys her work.
The question is this. Can you seperate the work of a person from the person?
Sometimes I can seperate the artist from the work they have shared with us and sometimes I can not.
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
JK Rowling was like homeless when she wrote Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure she knows what it's like.
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
I'm not saying celebrities should get extra weight because they are celebrities but your argument would also leave little room for those who actually make the laws.
Would Trump OR Clinton OR Sanders know what it is to live as a middle class citizen?
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
I'm not saying celebrities should get extra weight because they are celebrities but your argument would also leave little room for those who actually make the laws.
Would Trump OR Clinton OR Sanders know what it is to live as a middle class citizen?
You misunderstand me, sir. I actually prefer an ultra rich business savvy person in government because they know what it takes to bring a business out on top. In the same way Trump probably knows how to bring a country out on top, in terms of economics. Economy is priority #1 and other issues are all distant second imo.
Celebrities achieved wealth through talent in an art form, thus they usually aren't qualified to make an assesment on what is best for the country at all.
I have big complaints for each of the people you mentioned. Trump and Clinton both are not very nice people. Bernie seems like a nice guy but has stupid ideas that would never work in this country. Hillary would just continue the policies brought on by obama, which would be more of the mediocre same. Trump, however, was always the best candidate for the economy out of the bunch and right now the economy is starting to climb with the stock market peaking and more career type jobs being filled. You see, donald trump is rich as hell and he got there through his shrewd business mentality. That's actually who I want in charge; someone who knows how to make money and create assets.
I never knew jk's political opinion but after calling trump evil and crap she's clearly just another uninformed celebrity who knows nothing. I just don't trust what celebrities have to say, in general. Trump is not evil. He's not nice and he can say some real stupid crap, but he isn't like a dictator or something. I'm a friggen 21 year old who looked into the candidates and knew that despite all that the media was spewing Trump would be the better candidate for the economy. I educated myself. JK could do the same, but instead she feeds the popular anti-trump monster and helps create pointless fear in the masses. Everyone loves to hate trump now adays. If people actually opened their eyes they'd see that the economy is doing better already. It's almost like he knows what he is doing or something, but what do I know?
To americasteam7: I'm glad that there are some logical people on here. I still don't like Trump, but you are correct in that the nation is a whole lot better off with a man who is openly sexist but has the business savviness to create jobs than a nice guy who'll just plunge this country further into debt.
Goodreads can't (or won't) grasp that I don't hate that Rowling is anti-Trump; I hate that she's simply jumping on the "Trump is the second coming of Hitler" bandwagon and has repeatedly shown how uninformed she is on his policies. For someone who seems to want to be known for her political beliefs as much as she's known for writing the best selling children's series of all time, you'd think she'd put at least some effort into research. Hard to believe this is the same author who took the time to create backstories for everything from the Lumos spell to Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans.
If I had nothing to do with anyone or anything that was anti-Trump, I wouldn't be able to watch one of my favorite shows (Shark Tank) or read my favorite magazine (Mad). It's also really funny that I got so much flack when there are plenty of liberals who proudly declare that they hate any celebrity (such as Scott Baio and Tim Allen) who is pro-Trump, won't consume any food/drink that is pro-Trump (ala Yuengling beer), or even shop at any business that carries Ivanka's clothing line (as you can see here: https://grabyourwallet.org/ )
Also, it has already been debunked that Rowling was only poor because she chose not to work:
To americasteam7: I'm glad that there are some logical people on here. I still don't like Trump, but you are correct in that the nation is a whole lot better off with a man who is openly sexist but has the business savviness to create jobs than a nice guy who'll just plunge this country further into debt.
Goodreads can't (or won't) grasp that I don't hate that Rowling is anti-Trump; I hate that she's simply jumping on the "Trump is the second coming of Hitler" bandwagon and has repeatedly shown how uninformed she is on his policies. For someone who seems to want to be known for her political beliefs as much as she's known for writing the best selling children's series of all time, you'd think she'd put at least some effort into research. Hard to believe this is the same author who took the time to create backstories for everything from the Lumos spell to Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans.
If I had nothing to do with anyone or anything that was anti-Trump, I wouldn't be able to watch one of my favorite shows (Shark Tank) or read my favorite magazine (Mad). It's also really funny that I got so flack when there are plenty of liberals who proudly declare that they hate any celebrity (such as Scott Baio and Tim Allen) who is pro-Trump, won't consume any food/drink that is pro-Trump (ala Yuengling beer), or even give shop at any business that carries Ivanka's clothing line (as you can see here: https://grabyourwallet.org/... )
Also, it has already been debunked that Rowling was only poor because she chose not to work:
Trump is not Hitler. He's not going to ruin the country. And he's not gonna cause World War III.
Seriously, I had an argument with a very liberal moron about Trump and WWIII.
But in my opinion, he's an embarrassment to the presidency. I'd love it if he'd stop tweeted, stop endorsing his family, stop golfing, and stop talking shit.
Just do the fucking job and do it with some fucking dignity for Christ's sake.
I'm a friggen 21 year old who looked into the candidates and knew that despite all that the media was spewing Trump would be the better candidate for the economy. I educated myself. JK could do the same, but instead she feeds the popular anti-trump monster and helps create pointless fear in the masses. Everyone loves to hate trump now adays. If people actually opened their eyes they'd see that the economy is doing better already. It's almost like he knows what he is doing or something, but what do I know?
So I'm curious how you reconcile Trump is a shrewd businessman when he:
* Born with a silver spoon in his mouth and got a 1mil seed fund from his dad.
* Been accussed of stiffing payment to vendors multiple times.
* Been in-and-out of bankruptcy multiple times.
* Ran an airline he started into the ground in two years.
* Started the real-estate seminar school "Trump University" that was accussed of taking money and not offering much in return.
The only thing Trump has going for him is maintaining his personal brand, which IMO is probably the beginning and end of his actual business talent. The man is the very definiton of "failing upwards".
And Carrier is going ahead with layoffs, eliminating just about all the jobs claimed to have been saved. But they get to keep the tax incentives he had to hand over.
Comments
Good art from someone I disagree with should help me understand and appreciate other points of view a little bit better. Your artists views are a major part of what makes their art good and to claim to separate them, is imho denial.
That said.. I never really liked rowling's stuff
Originally posted by: cradelit
I seem to be in the minority in that I don't understand how people can think they can separate art from artist.. acting is a bit different because they are not driving the movies direction, but in general art is about self expression..
Good art from someone I disagree with should help me understand and appreciate other points of view a little bit better. Your artists views are a major part of what makes their art good and to claim to separate them, is imho denial.
That said.. I never really liked rowling's stuff
I think the real question is to separate the person and their works, not their ideas and their works, cause their ideas will obviously be in their works somehow, be it political ideas or whatever.
One recent case in particular come to my mind, as a Quebecer...
And how people most critical of "celebrities' opinions" are generally supportive, or at least against the backlash against, the president who literally only got to his position by being a celebrity.
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
People can accomplish a lot more when they work together as a nation, yeah. An individual working for the greater good seems like a sophistry.
Originally posted by: cradelit
I seem to be in the minority in that I don't understand how people can think they can separate art from artist..
Like how Rock and Roll Part 2 still plays at every sports arena the last 20 years
That said, I ignore what entertainers say about politics and real world situations as I don't pay to hear their thoughts on subjects, I pay for their entertainment.
Why do people automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about someone who's against Trump must be a Trump supporter theirself?
Let me set the record straight:
I didn't like Trump before the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I didn't like Trump during the election (I regularly laughed at him in Mad Magazine).
I don't like Trump now that he's president (I will continue to regularly laugh at him in Mad Magazine).
Mad's Trump coverage, which is extensive, is a big part of why I have recently become a subscriber again. So I wonder what you're on about.
Your idea in the OP about how people should personally and directly dedicate their daily life and personal resources to anything they have an opinion on seems to me to be a fairly common right wing trope. I disagree with the notion that caring for the greater good is a viable operational policy for most individual people, instead of something that should be collectively addressed as a great nation. Thoughts?
Uh no, that was not what I said. I never said that Rowling has to use even one pence of her fortune to help others. My problem is that she wants to have her tretacle tart and eat it too. She hates a man who believes he can say whatever he wants without consequences, when she is the exact same way. She expects to go on one of the biggest social media sites in the world and make claims about how she cares so much about these causes, while also holding the distinct title of richest author in the world, and not get responses such as, "Well, why don't you do something about it, filthy rich author?"
On Goodreads, I even pointed out that Rowling herself would be all over a Trump if one of them did something like that. I even made a hypothetical (an extremely believable one) about how if Donald Jr. went on Twitter and tweeted that he can't believe how little the common worker is paid, and someone responded with: Does this mean you're going to give all the workers at Trump Towers a raise?—and he went silent, she would waste no time in typing up a scathing response.
I also asked the Goodreads members if they themselves would have had a problem with Jr. going silent if he was called out...which they would not answer (no doubt because they had been admantly defending Rowling going silent on the refugees callout).
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
On Goodreads, I even pointed out that Rowling herself would be all over a Trump if one of them did something like that. I even made a hypothetical (an extremely believable one) about how if Donald Jr. went on Twitter and tweeted that he can't believe how little the common worker is paid, and someone responded with: Does this mean you're going to give all the workers at Trump Towers a raise?—and he went silent, she would waste no time in typing up a scathing response.
I also asked the Goodreads members if they themselves would have had a problem with Jr. going silent if he was called out...which they would not answer (no doubt because they had been admantly defending Rowling going silent on the refugees callout).
Well, I think you kind of answered my question, if indirectly. So, thank you.
Some of this is a little semantics anyway - of course she is allowed to say what she wants (just like everyone else). And of course she knows not everyone will agree or like her. I doubt she has any demand or expectation of her words not having any consequences.
So she didn't respond to a petition from a group of people who obviously don't like her. Which honestly was probably the smarter move.
I am very passionate about child advocacy and children in foster care, and locally I work with nonprofits and spend a lot of time on that. I suppose I could be called a hypocrite because despite all my talk of the need for good foster parents, I have not personally volunteered. I have several reasons for this, but regardless, if someone just took some of my words about fostering in a vacuum and confronted me about not actually 'doing anything' by not becoming a foster parent and taking kids in my home, I suppose it could make me look like a hypocrite. But it also completely discounts any other thing I AM doing. Sometimes it is direct action, and sometimes it is words. She is using her platform to advocate for a cause she believes in, and who knows what she does toward that cause. Again, I just think it's a little unfair because I think she is someone who knows that words have power too, and sometimes the goal of influencing legislation and/or public mentality can be an action in and of itself.
So, setting aside the banter resulting from the juxtaposition of political opinions, what this entire thread topic boils down to is, "Someone has an opinion that I don't like. They shared that opinion in a public forum. A lot of people respect their opinion, and that makes me a sad panda, so they are a poopie-head and I don't like them anymore."
welcome to the internet
This kind of stuff is what's wrong with art as a whole nowadays. SJW-ism and virtue signaling is not only present on the artists' twitter accounts, but also in their art.
Political messages have been a big part of art for a LONG time.
So, setting aside the banter resulting from the juxtaposition of political opinions, what this entire thread topic boils down to is, "Someone has an opinion that I don't like. They shared that opinion in a public forum. A lot of people respect their opinion, and that makes me a sad panda, so they are a poopie-head and I don't like them anymore."
That is not it at all. He doesn't like her as a person but enjoys her work.
The question is this. Can you seperate the work of a person from the person?
Sometimes I can seperate the artist from the work they have shared with us and sometimes I can not.
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
JK Rowling was like homeless when she wrote Harry Potter. I'm pretty sure she knows what it's like.
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
I'm not saying celebrities should get extra weight because they are celebrities but your argument would also leave little room for those who actually make the laws.
Would Trump OR Clinton OR Sanders know what it is to live as a middle class citizen?
I would take her seriously if she actually provided a solid argument based on facts and objectivity for why she dislikes trump. Instead, it seems to be shes as uninformed as pretty much every celebrity out there and is just playing along with the "trump is evil" narrative just because it is popular.
I have learned in the past to not take celebrities seriously because pretty much all of them are idiots and have no knowledge of what it is like to live with the as a middle class citizen or pretty much any political issue really. As long as their pockets are full then they can use their liberal, leftist stance as their moral high ground and make themselves look good to the uneducated masses.
I will admire them for their talent and their talent alone and nothing else.
I'm not saying celebrities should get extra weight because they are celebrities but your argument would also leave little room for those who actually make the laws.
Would Trump OR Clinton OR Sanders know what it is to live as a middle class citizen?
You misunderstand me, sir. I actually prefer an ultra rich business savvy person in government because they know what it takes to bring a business out on top. In the same way Trump probably knows how to bring a country out on top, in terms of economics. Economy is priority #1 and other issues are all distant second imo.
Celebrities achieved wealth through talent in an art form, thus they usually aren't qualified to make an assesment on what is best for the country at all.
I have big complaints for each of the people you mentioned. Trump and Clinton both are not very nice people. Bernie seems like a nice guy but has stupid ideas that would never work in this country. Hillary would just continue the policies brought on by obama, which would be more of the mediocre same. Trump, however, was always the best candidate for the economy out of the bunch and right now the economy is starting to climb with the stock market peaking and more career type jobs being filled. You see, donald trump is rich as hell and he got there through his shrewd business mentality. That's actually who I want in charge; someone who knows how to make money and create assets.
I never knew jk's political opinion but after calling trump evil and crap she's clearly just another uninformed celebrity who knows nothing. I just don't trust what celebrities have to say, in general. Trump is not evil. He's not nice and he can say some real stupid crap, but he isn't like a dictator or something. I'm a friggen 21 year old who looked into the candidates and knew that despite all that the media was spewing Trump would be the better candidate for the economy. I educated myself. JK could do the same, but instead she feeds the popular anti-trump monster and helps create pointless fear in the masses. Everyone loves to hate trump now adays. If people actually opened their eyes they'd see that the economy is doing better already. It's almost like he knows what he is doing or something, but what do I know?
Goodreads can't (or won't) grasp that I don't hate that Rowling is anti-Trump; I hate that she's simply jumping on the "Trump is the second coming of Hitler" bandwagon and has repeatedly shown how uninformed she is on his policies. For someone who seems to want to be known for her political beliefs as much as she's known for writing the best selling children's series of all time, you'd think she'd put at least some effort into research. Hard to believe this is the same author who took the time to create backstories for everything from the Lumos spell to Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans.
If I had nothing to do with anyone or anything that was anti-Trump, I wouldn't be able to watch one of my favorite shows (Shark Tank) or read my favorite magazine (Mad). It's also really funny that I got so much flack when there are plenty of liberals who proudly declare that they hate any celebrity (such as Scott Baio and Tim Allen) who is pro-Trump, won't consume any food/drink that is pro-Trump (ala Yuengling beer), or even shop at any business that carries Ivanka's clothing line (as you can see here: https://grabyourwallet.org/ )
Also, it has already been debunked that Rowling was only poor because she chose not to work:
http://www.cracked.com/article_16989_6-inspiring-rags-to-riches-stories-that-are-bullshit_p2.html
To americasteam7: I'm glad that there are some logical people on here. I still don't like Trump, but you are correct in that the nation is a whole lot better off with a man who is openly sexist but has the business savviness to create jobs than a nice guy who'll just plunge this country further into debt.
Goodreads can't (or won't) grasp that I don't hate that Rowling is anti-Trump; I hate that she's simply jumping on the "Trump is the second coming of Hitler" bandwagon and has repeatedly shown how uninformed she is on his policies. For someone who seems to want to be known for her political beliefs as much as she's known for writing the best selling children's series of all time, you'd think she'd put at least some effort into research. Hard to believe this is the same author who took the time to create backstories for everything from the Lumos spell to Bertie Botts Every Flavor Beans.
If I had nothing to do with anyone or anything that was anti-Trump, I wouldn't be able to watch one of my favorite shows (Shark Tank) or read my favorite magazine (Mad). It's also really funny that I got so flack when there are plenty of liberals who proudly declare that they hate any celebrity (such as Scott Baio and Tim Allen) who is pro-Trump, won't consume any food/drink that is pro-Trump (ala Yuengling beer), or even give shop at any business that carries Ivanka's clothing line (as you can see here: https://grabyourwallet.org/... )
Also, it has already been debunked that Rowling was only poor because she chose not to work:
http://www.cracked.com/article_16...
You read Mad Magazine? Wtf??
Seriously, I had an argument with a very liberal moron about Trump and WWIII.
But in my opinion, he's an embarrassment to the presidency. I'd love it if he'd stop tweeted, stop endorsing his family, stop golfing, and stop talking shit.
Just do the fucking job and do it with some fucking dignity for Christ's sake.
I'm a friggen 21 year old who looked into the candidates and knew that despite all that the media was spewing Trump would be the better candidate for the economy. I educated myself. JK could do the same, but instead she feeds the popular anti-trump monster and helps create pointless fear in the masses. Everyone loves to hate trump now adays. If people actually opened their eyes they'd see that the economy is doing better already. It's almost like he knows what he is doing or something, but what do I know?
So I'm curious how you reconcile Trump is a shrewd businessman when he:
* Born with a silver spoon in his mouth and got a 1mil seed fund from his dad.
* Been accussed of stiffing payment to vendors multiple times.
* Been in-and-out of bankruptcy multiple times.
* Ran an airline he started into the ground in two years.
* Started the real-estate seminar school "Trump University" that was accussed of taking money and not offering much in return.
The only thing Trump has going for him is maintaining his personal brand, which IMO is probably the beginning and end of his actual business talent. The man is the very definiton of "failing upwards".