Anyone who votes based on a celebrity endorsement
should not be allowed to vote...
shareSo no one should vote for Trump... He is a celebrity and keeps endorsing himself;-)
share
MovieChat Forums > Taylor Swift Discussion > Anyone who votes based on a celebrity en...
Trump is toast. Swift's endorsing Kamala put the nail in the coffin of his campaign.
share[deleted]
Well, just remember one thing: You along with everyone else are free to vote for Harris, but once the Honeymoon along with the Smiling, Happy Happy, Joy Joy has settled and reality sets back in, those who voted for her will experience "Buyers Remorse" and you'll look back on it and realize maybe Trump really was the better alternative because at least you knew where he stood, this woman, you don't know shit about her other than she steals Trump's campaign promises hence the jab he took at her over that and her Father is a Professor and bonafide Marxist and I'm sure he's trained his little girl well..
shareHey, what are YOU gonna do once Harris wins and trump goes to jail?
Will you experience "Buyers Remorse" for wasting your life following a loser and a convicted criminal?
Jail for what?? Classified Documents lying in his 2nd floor closet VS Biden who did the same thing, only left them in his garage next to his corvette and what happens?? He gets a slap on the hand and some bullshit that he's just an old man and made a mistake and didn't know better whereas Trump receives a Fleet of fucking boats with FBI on the side and you tell me THAT was fair?? What?? Improper book keeping?? What's the good for?? What?? 60 days in jail?? Trump's not going anywhere and you seem to forget about the Immunity the Supreme Court handed down that also affects not just Trump dumbass, but Biden, Obama and Clinton and Bush
shareJail for being a multiple counts felon.
When you break the law and get cought, get sentenced, and get a guilty verdict, you become a criminal.
Your parents never explained it to you?
It's funny... The law and order party blindly supports a 34 times convicted felon. Nothing but hypocrites.
shareWhy dont people like you get upset when the laws are not applied evenly?
shareYou sound like my nephew. He used to throw stuff around the classroom. And then complain that he nobody else was being punished for misbehaviour that he imagined they must have done too.
Corrupt assholes think that everyone is as corrupt as them. They can't handle being held responsible for their actions and resort to spraying out flimsy accusations like diarrhea. Too late. We already know you stink Donald.
[deleted]
you said that last time. Ariana Grande is way better.
There is such a thing called religious freedom, you know, just because their god is a woman, instead of a man, like Tom Cruise, that does not mean you can just look down on those people.
shareDon’t most people look down on Tom Cruise though, seeing as he’s only 4’10”.
shareTom Cruise's official height is recorded as 5 feet 7 inches. Of course there are people dispute that, but through this still from rainman: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-fed7dff5a6fc8d43e3219b4ff4527724-lq we can see he is taller than Dustin Hoffman.
Dustin Hoffman's height is 5' 5", so I think Cruise is not too far from his official height. Which is about average for a man of his time.
I have video evidence: -
https://youtu.be/b23a7wfsY9Q?si=TnRZDxfAeZExg7Tc
Thought I was 6' for decades , measured last week - seem to have lost an inch :(
in 50s - cant be age surely
Even worse is a reality TV celebrity running for president and people actually voting for the prick.
shareDoes celebrity endorsement actually work? I still vividly remember when Bush campaigned for his second term, most Hollywood celebrities supported his rival (I don't remember the name), but Bush won. And when Trump tried to run for president in 2016, almost all celebrities in the USA were against him, yet Trump won.
shareFew have the influence and cult status of Taylor Swift, even Tom Cruise does not have much of cult following outside of Scientology.
Though some of her previous political endorsements did not work.
I think only young female fans would follow her endorsement, also Vance calling Swift childless cat lady could have enraged some of her fans as well, that could cause them casting their votes in anger.
It would be something, but overall I don't think it would make that big a difference, unless the votes are very close.
The author of Freakonomics is a professor at The University of Chicago, his study showed, contrary to most people's belief, money can't make you win elections. If money can't change the outcome of elections, I doubt celebrity endorsement can make a difference, which I think will be an interesting topic to study, I should email the professor to ask him to study this topic.
shareOh money does, why do you think elections cost billions of dollars? Why only the candidates of major parties win? I mean what is the difference between their candidates and those from minor parties or the independents? Why does Bernie Sanders have to be on the ticket of democrats to be a presidential candidate? He is not a democrat.
We don't know politicians, not personally, they live in the media. The only candidates you think you know only because the media report on them. Otherwise you would hardly even have any knowledge or perception of them, and I doubt you would vote for someone if you never even heard of them.
The money they spent were mostly on media coverage, of course having media moguls supporting them helps too. I think that is why billionaires were so eager to own media platforms, even not all that profitable.
Money can't guarantee winning, but it certainly helps a lot.
I'm not the author of the study, these were their posts:
https://freakonomics.com/podcast/does-money-really-buy-elections/
https://freakonomics.com/2012/01/how-much-does-campaign-spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/
If you read the wiki page of the book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freakonomics
You will find almost no mention of elections, let along a major research on the topic.
He didn't just write one book, he wrote several, and I read all of them, he mentioned the study, and he taught it in the class. He is a professor at a famous university, which means what he said and taught must be published in a paper.
share[deleted]
The links you provided are more statements than research.
And I think all they say is what I said: Money can't guarantee winning, but it certainly helps a lot.
The real intuition is this: If money does not help, why spent so much on elections?
Actually, they said was helps a little.
And your question why spend so much if money doesn't help? Right now almost all investors know Active Investing will lose money, which is why most funds in the USA are Passive Investing. You might ask: if active investing doesn't work, why do thousands of people work in active investing with billions in their accounts?
It's a human nature, even if people know something doesn't work, they still keep doing it. It's like Elon Musk said he doesn't believe in god, but when his rocket launched he still prayed to god.
Right now almost all investors know Active Investing will lose money, which is why most funds in the USA are Passive Investing. You might ask: if active investing doesn't work, why do thousands of people work in active investing with billions in their accounts?
There are so many things wrong in what you are saying, it is ridiculous. I almost lost interests in continuing this conversation, because this is actually my area of expertise.
First of all, do you know someone called Warren Buffett? I am an active investor, nothing compare to Mr Buffett but I retired more than 10 years ago at the age of 41, through my own active investing in share market.
And majority of people don't know anything about stock market investing, don't even know what the stock indexes are. Those who do know about financial markets know active investing does work, but not everyone can make it, at least some have to lose, otherwise where are the winnings coming from?
Collectively active managers won't beat index funds, because someone has to lose money for someone else to gain it, so collectively active managers perform about the same as index funds, just less more fees.
Mr Buffett advised people to invest in index funds, I think that is one of the reasons why so many invested in them, and I think because it is as difficult to pick a decent active fund manager as to pick winning stocks.
That is why I rather invest my own money. share
You said I'd be wrong, but you didn't point out what was wrong. My main point was: that active investing (almost) doesn't work, yet people still pour money into active investing. John Bogle is the godfather of passive investing, he spent his entire life advocating passive investing and criticizing active investing, yet his son managed an active investing fund, and... John Bogle invested in his son's fund.
The similarity was that active investing and campaigning money almost always doesn't work, yet people still keep doing it, even John Bogle. It's like gambling. Do you think people who didn't know gambling in casinos almost always lost money? Even a child knows you will lose money, yet casinos earn billions in profit. You might ask: if gambling will lose money, why do people spend billions on gambling?
So you are saying Warren Buffett is a fraud?
At this stage I no longer think this is an intelligent conversation.
I don't know whether you are pretending or you are really that easily fooled by so obviously false narratives.
Then again, I no longer have any interest in this discussion.
I said "almost always," but I didn't say "always," I even use gambling as an example: everyone knows some people will win money (like Buffett), but almost always people will lose money, yet people still pour billions into something they know doesn't work.
shareThere are people fail because they are just untalented.
But there are people fail because they are looking for excuses not to try. They say trying "almost always" ends up in failure.
That is really a pity.
Then again, it is not my problem.
I actually appreciate and encourage such behaviour in others. We can't all be successful.
I just think of another example to show you how people keep doing something they know doesn't work: voting.
Everyone knows one vote almost always wouldn't change the outcome of elections, yet millions of people still keep voting, it's a dilemma in academics, they wrote papers trying to understand why people go to vote?
The vote for president is coming, you can ask your friends who will go to vote: "Do you believe your vote can change the outcome?" I believe everyone will reply to you with the same answer: "No, I don't think my vote can change anything."
Voting, campaign money, investing, gambling, praying to god... the human nature is: even if they know it doesn't work, they still keep doing it.
A lot of people believe what the media have been telling them, a lot of people with mainly implanted thoughts. That started as soon as they can speak and read, it is very hard not to be affected.
But for smart people they usually going through de-programming once entering college. Then again the majority still won't be able to break free from the programming by the media, at least not completely.
Like there are people believe money has nothing to do with elections, yet billions were spent on them. Are they that blind and stupid? You tell me.
Do you really think people running the world are the ones actually stupid? Or the more intuitive and straightforward answer is that you are.
Anyway, if you insist you are right, so be it.
Like there are people believe money has nothing to do with elections, yet billions were spent on them. Are they that blind and stupid? You tell me.
I just list many examples for you to show even if something doesn't work, people still keep doing it. But for campaign money, I think there is another reason why people keep donating: to affect donees' policy. The donors know money can't change the outcome of elections, but they know donating money can change the policy, a politician who receives money has to "repay" the money in their policy to benefit the donors. share
Just like minority voters, the real issue with young voters isn’t their ability to make informed choices—it’s that they’re often discouraged and gaslit into thinking their vote doesn’t matter, which is a form of voter suppression.
share^^^ Exactly!
No one is changing their vote due to a celebrity endorsement, it's merely a tool to drive turnout...