The Avengers and Phil Coulson endorse Hillary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw

Amazing, right ??

Silas Mercury wrote:
Amazing, right ??

Not really. Famous people can be bought, can be wrong, can be foolish just like anyone else. They just happen to be well known. And not even for really being deep thinkers or particularly bright. But for being able to fake their emotions and fit into the roles requested of them. Does that really make them someone who you should allow to influence your vote?

I'm left wondering what's so amazing about this? A group of actors who somehow believe one side is better than the other, and that voting will somehow change the outcome. Add the fact that nether of the the "other two" running were allowed in the debate, simply because their pocket books did not allow them the luxury of buying t.v time.

What message does this present before the american people, if not the world. That ultimately, the system is a process which is BOUGHT. People claim to want change, yet continue making the same decisions, (this or that, huge selection there) and keep expecting things to somehow change for the better.

As absurd as it sounds, the system WILL not change, it must be starved, and the only way that will ever happen is if the people decide "as individuals," to not vote...

I have no idea why anyone would be surprised by or even care about this. People are allowed to have opinions. Form your own.

No

Americans are screwed , who ever they choose , they have no say whatsoever goes on and what laws are being formed , public opinion is manipulated by the press and i for one am very worried about their future , there democracy is so far off from what democracy stands for , i am not saying we are better off here in the Netherlands but we have the advantage of being one big city and small enough for complaints to be heard ..anyway .. i don't think hiring an actor to get a point across is a good thing anyway , when i pay him to say he loves me he will

*rubs chin* hmmm....

I'm not sure they "endorse Hillary" so much as "Suggest that Trump is a bit more of a risk"

(I don't have a horse in this race. I'm sure they're both as awful as anyone else in politics)


Y'all right - Just about everyone can be bought. The difference is famous people sometimes cost more.


So I guess what would be interesting is not "Oh, some people were bought" - but "How much did they cost?"


For all we know, they did it for free.

I'm sure a thousand (million?) people would appear in an ad for free, just for the thrill of it - but people who exist in the public eye, you could say they have more to lose?

They've just pissed off a bunch of trump voters, who now may or may want to boycott their future enterprises (or worse)

So whatever they got paid would want to be at least what they've lost in business - Or they genuinely believe the message is important enough (to them) to risk the losses and backlash.



(I'm just pondering this in general terms - Not my country, not that interested in the politics)

They don't endorse Hillary. They endorse "not Trump."

There is a MASSIVE difference.

They don't endorse Hillary. They endorse "not Trump."

There is a MASSIVE difference.

I was about to say this same thing. There is no endorsement of Hillary happening. And hell, for the most part, there isn't even a whole lot of "not Trump" happening. He's referenced a grand total of.... Once? Twice? In that entire 3.5 minutes, and not even by name. Hillary isn't even referenced at all. The Congressional votes are referenced as much as Trump...

The point isn't an endorsement of one over the other. The point is an endorsement of "you better get your hind end out there and vote on Nov whatever-another"...

Silas Mercury wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw

Amazing, right ??

Having direct experience in the entertainment industry and working with some obscenely rich people, I can tell you I'd rather listen to the opinion of a gas station attendant or landscaper than any of those people. You don't really understand how distorted their view of the world is unless you experience it first hand. They really don't have a dog in the race, and whoever wins won't actually effect them either way. Most people listen to them without understanding that they have either lost or never had a direct connection to how much health care costs, or taxation, or milk for that matter. They may be aware of the price, but $4 is the same as $40 is the same as $400. It doesn't make a difference. They have a luxury that only very deep pocketed, generational wealth can afford, they can vote idealism and not be effect by the negative consequences.

Keep that in mind when very rich people tell you whom to vote for.

I'm not sure they "endorse Hillary" so much as "Suggest that Trump is a bit more of a risk"

(I don't have a horse in this race. I'm sure they're both as awful as anyone else in politics)

This has always baffled me. How exactly is Trump more of a risk than someone that's participated in the destabilization of the middle east for 8+years now, voted for CISPA, NDAA, The extension of the patriot act, so on and so forth? I'm sure if you asked the families of the weeding party where we drone bombed 70+ people, many of them children, who was more of a risk, you might get a different reply.

Trump is more of a risk in that he's an unknown. He's never held any office, never been responsible for policy, and was in fact pretty chummy with the Clintons until a little before this election cycle. We really can't say with any certainty what Trump will do, but we can say what Clinton will do, just ask Libya.

This has always baffled me. How exactly is Trump more of a risk than someone that's participated in the destabilization of the middle east for 8+years now, voted for CISPA, NDAA, The extension of the patriot act, so on and so forth? I'm sure if you asked the families of the weeding party where we drone bombed 70+ people, many of them children, who was more of a risk, you might get a different reply.

Trump is more of a risk in that he's an unknown. He's never held any office, never been responsible for policy, and was in fact pretty chummy with the Clintons until a little before this election cycle. We really can't say with any certainty what Trump will do, but we can say what Clinton will do, just ask Liby

I'll assume you're replying to the gist of the message in the video and not to me - I was not offering my own views on USA politics (or foreign or domestic affairs).

JamesSand wrote:

This has always baffled me. How exactly is Trump more of a risk than someone that's participated in the destabilization of the middle east for 8+years now, voted for CISPA, NDAA, The extension of the patriot act, so on and so forth? I'm sure if you asked the families of the weeding party where we drone bombed 70+ people, many of them children, who was more of a risk, you might get a different reply.

Trump is more of a risk in that he's an unknown. He's never held any office, never been responsible for policy, and was in fact pretty chummy with the Clintons until a little before this election cycle. We really can't say with any certainty what Trump will do, but we can say what Clinton will do, just ask Liby

I'll assume your replying to the gist of the message in the video and not to me - I was not offering my own views on USA politics (or foreign or domestic affairs).

You're correct. I'm replying to the video and not you directly. Sorry if I wasn't clear and/or seems confrontational.

Just clarifying,

No wuckers

Because Trump is a racist so and so.

Silas Mercury wrote: Because Trump is a racist so and so.

Prove that statement.

Honestly, I don't care at all about who they are or aren't endorsing and I'm still not sure I believe them that voting actually matters all that much (thank you electoral college system). But I did enjoy this ad a lot simply for Mark Ruffalo's reactions at the end.

"What? I never agreed to that." "No, guys. They should just vote because it's important." :laugh: He's great. :laugh:

Silas Mercury wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw

Amazing, right ??

No. It's quite disgusting, although not everything in it is wrong.



Let's be frank what the US needs is for the next president to be shot dead, along with half the house of reps. With a bit of luck it'll put some fear into their successors and survivors and everything won't go to shit.

I agree with Ren that it is disgusting. But my reasoning is that non-political persons are using their fame to push a political agenda and not giving legitimate political reasoning based on politics or policy. But that has been going on in politics for years so I don’t know why we hold the media to any higher standards now.

I also agree with the sentiment that part of the issue is the career politicians that have resided in their seats of authority for too long with little reprisal for their bad policy and decisions. There does need to be a major change in who occupies the different seats, but people going out and voting should be the way to bring about the change.

Every citizen has a voice and a vote, and... unfortunately, every citizen gets a vote. It is far too easy for political parties to play to the emotions of the populace and sway votes to their favor even though their policies are detrimental to the wellbeing of the nation. Or that their records do not support the promises they make the people. Everyone having a vote only creates a strong democracy when everyone is well informed with actual facts and not just buying in to whatever people tell them because they want you to vote for them. It has been said that everyone has a right to their opinion. But if one’s opinion is going to dictate policy, I would say that they only have a right to a well informed and educated opinion.

ren wrote:

Silas Mercury wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw

Amazing, right ??

Let's be frank what the US needs is for the next president to be shot dead, along with half the house of reps.

Agreed